PDA

View Full Version : Home Inspector Licensing 2007 Scorecard



Deleted Account
04-02-2007, 06:03 AM
Yesterday may have been opening day for Major League Baseball, but for home inspector licensing bills we are now about half way through the 2007 legislative season.

Once again it has been an uphill climb for those who feel compelled to socialize and turn our profession over to government control, a big shout out to Washington State. With all the nannies up there claiming that licensing was a slam-dunk, the agony of defeat must be exceptionally painful, put a little ice on it boys.

New Hampshire did not disappoint the freethinkers among us, their motto "Live free or die" proved to be a worthy battle cry which stymied the licensing Nazis once again.

Defeat can certainly take its toll, Kansas will require a much greater influx of money, time and energy to even get close to passing a home inspector licensing bill. What looked like a simple job of swamp draining soon found their minion's up to their elbows in alligators, freedom is hard to kill, better luck next year.

Missouri, how could you licensing gurus screw up something as simple as getting home inspector licensing passed in Missouri? Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, besides just what did you expect when you teamed up with the Realtors, honesty? It looks very unlikely that HI licensing will come to Missouri any too soon. You just might want to consider pushing to get the home builders licensed prior to burdening the home inspectors, don’t you think?

Which brings us to Florida the only possible bright spot on the 2007 HI licensing tour, but have you seen the bill? Not worthy to be used as toilet paper, lacking an SoP no Governor in his right mind would sign it.

It is important to document and make public the waste of time, money & energy the licensing proponents have spent on a failed cause because it will be necessary to not only replace those squandered resources but to go further and spend more good after bad chasing a ideal that appears to be less & less worthy of the expenditure.

Brian E Kelly
04-02-2007, 10:57 AM
Joe
I had to read your post 2 times to fully understand. I don't know why you are aganst the Lic. issue. Every professional occupation that we have is lic. by the state ( Dr, lawyers, engineers) and the general public sees this as a profesional with at least minimal amount of knowledge to get the Lic., If we as HI are to be considered a profesional then we are going to be seen to Joe Homeowner as such. There are a lot of fly by occupations out there and I do not want to be considered one of them. I bring to my customers a professional service and are proud to be Lic.
That being said the people runing my great state of NY (pun) have not as of yet come up with the best or for that matter any rules and regulations on our SOP and continuing Ed required to maintain this Lic. The government might not be all that good but I believe that they have the right idea just not necessarly the right smarts to finish their job on this issue.
In all that being said I truly believe that the Lic. issue will weed out the fly by nighters and part timers and turn this occupation into a professional occupation.

Chad Fabry
04-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Which brings us to Florida the only possible bright spot on the 2007 HI licensing tour, but have you seen the bill? Not worthy to be used as toilet paper, lacking an SoP no Governor in his right mind would sign it.


Joe, I certainly would not count on that strategy.

Pete Paff
04-03-2007, 04:55 PM
Joe, I agree with Brian. Maryland is beginning to license Home Inspectors as of January 2008 and this licensure will begin to "raise the bar" of the Home Inspection industry in Maryland. The licensure will provide protection two ways.

Firstly, the license will protect the consumer from fly-by-night inspectors that do not know a defect from a hole in the ground. The incompetent inspector's license will be removed and the legislation requires that only licensed inspectors can perform inspections.

Secondly, the good inspectors wil have protection against these bad inspectors.

To me this is a win-win.

Darren Miller
04-04-2007, 05:21 AM
Pete,

Sorry to tell you this, but you're in fantasy land.

New Jersey had one of the toughest licensing bills in the country. By the time it actually took effect, the law is, well, it's useless.

Here's what happens:

Wanna-be inspectors will cry "it's too hard to become licensed"

People out for a quick buck will cry "continuing education is too much"

A stupid arguement in NJ was there wasn't enought inspectors to keep the housing market moving quickly. Now, a lot of inspectors are lowballing just to keep the cash flowing.

It's sad, really sad; NJ tried to raise the bar but ........

Just watch and see who will (try) to lower the standards; for your sake I how they don't


Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House! (http://www.aboutthehouseinspections.com)

Jack Feldmann
04-04-2007, 01:03 PM
Tennessee is now into it's 10th month of licensing.

I saw an increase in the home inspectors in business in my area.
I have only been asked for proof of my license maybe a half dozen times.
It is possible for someone to be a licensed home insepctor and have NEVER inspected a house.
It IS harder to become an inspector now than it was before, AND it does cost more to start up. This, MAY keep some poeple from entering the profession, but probably not much.

I have not seen much difference at all from licensing. It just costs me about $150/year more than it did before.

However, the BENEFIT of licensing is: twice I was able to tell a builder that as a licensed home inspector, I AM qualified to inspect his "perfect" home - cuz the State says I am. Before, they could throw up a flag and say inspectors were not qualified to inspect homes, so no one should use them. That bit them in the foot a bit.

I'm not sure if the public is any safer now than before. I'm not even sure IF or how many complaints have been lodged against inspectors.

After fighting licensing for a decade, we ended up with it anyway - and it's not too bad (for now).
Your mileage may vary.
JF

Tim Moreira
04-04-2007, 01:35 PM
Jack,

What kind of requirements are on the license? Do you have a link to your state's licensing? I have some questions and would like to read what the requirements are. I know it is only a matter of time before Florida requires a license too.

1. Do you have to carry E & O?
2. Did it have educational requirements and number of inspections?
3. Was there some kinda apprenticeship for new inspectors or inspectors that are still fairly new?

Mike Schulz
04-04-2007, 03:01 PM
I agree with Jack. We have been lic. for 11 years.
We have a increase of applicants each and every year.
They are trying to change the associate program because many can't get mentors.
As far as weeding out bad inspectors that's not going to happen. They haven't weeded out bad builders yet have they.:p

If you want to see our SOP go to North Carolina Licensed Home Inspectors Association (http://www.nclhia.com) and there will be links.:eek:

Jim Luttrall
04-04-2007, 03:22 PM
Texas had an apprentice program along with minimal education requirements back in the stone age when I started and it was very difficult to find a sponsor.
Not long after, they allowed substitution of education hours which opened the flood gates.
A few years later they upped the education requirements which caused an in-rush to beat the clock.
I still favor the apprentice/mentor program, but then I have not been to one of the inspector schools. I have attended several "events" at some of the local schools and one paid CE class. I was never impressed with the knowledge nor professionalism at any of the schools I have had dealings with in the Dallas area.
I actually like licensing just because it does create some boundaries and minimal protection should someone decide to sue.
But licensing will never get rid of unprofessional inspectors. Even doctors and lawyers have their share of quacks.
Inspector licensing in Texas is supposed to protect the public, not the industry, so I suppose it does insure at least a minimal level of protection.

Kevin Luce
04-04-2007, 04:41 PM
I see licensing has one positive effect in this area. I've seen other companies in this area hire people for only the summer months to do home inspections. Now those people are not available since they have no interest in getting licensed. That alone makes me happy that we are now required to be licensed.

Jack Feldmann
04-04-2007, 05:34 PM
Sorry I don't have a link to TN licensing, but you could probably Google it.

In a nutshell, for a new inspector:

90 hours of approved HI training
Pass the NHIE
Have 500K E&O insurance
HS grad or GED
Send them $300

There is NO apprentice or training provision in the law.

I was able to be grandfathered in because:
I had been a HI for over 3 years (proof was copies of business license or Inc. papers..
I had done more than X number inspections. I just forgot the #, I think it was 150. The list had to have clients name, inspection address, date of the inspection. It also had to be residential, 4 units or less. Commercial inspections did not count.
Have proof of E&O
Send them $300

Scott Patterson
04-05-2007, 11:05 AM
I must say the licening does work if it is enforced. This was just posted on the TN website of two individuals who were caught for inspecting without a license this past month.

Home Inspector Licensing Program

Respondent: William Ritter, Knoxville, TN
Violation: Unlicensed activity
Action: $250 civil penalty

Respondent: Don McGonagil, Nashville, TN
Violation: Unlicensed activity
Action: $250 Civil Penalty

Deleted Account
04-05-2007, 02:17 PM
You can trust that I will do whatever I can to disrupt those who promote licensing, to create confusion and inject chaos into the system. There is no real reasonable way to negotiate with those who are attempting to socialize our profession and turn our profession over to government control.

The reason that licensing proponents have such a difficult time getting bills passed is because those who favor licensing are by & large liars and the legislators are on to the lies. Had the inception of licensing been sprung from the loins of consumers we would have been licensed decades ago. But the push for licensing is not consumer driven no all licensing laws were created by home inspectors seeking to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. The good thing is that it takes very little effort to inject chaos, create doubt or an atmosphere of disharmony.

I would venture to say that it is on a scale of one thousand to one. For every thousand man hours or dollars of effort to get a bill passed it only takes one hour or dollar to inject enough chaos to knock down the house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

Under these dire times the spare thousand dollars & man hours necessary to see a bill passed should be harder & harder to come by, hopefully those of us who are not currently licensed will be saved the from the plague that is decimating our profession.

Brian E Kelly
04-06-2007, 05:01 AM
Joseph
I guess your world is all gloomy. I am proud that my State has made this profession a License one. Where is the fact that any profession is licensed is worst off because of it? Your comment on the so called fact, you state that all of those who favor licensing "are by and large big fat liars" is showing your frustrations with our trade. Not sure where these come from but the general public still and always see and trade that is licensed by any government body is a good thing for their protection.
My guess is that you would be better off in New Hampshire, as their moto is "Live Free or Die" and nothing is regulated in any way. Then again that state is not the most profitable state to do business in.
I guess that the best thing about living in the US, is that we are all intitled to our own opition, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Deleted Account
04-06-2007, 07:15 AM
Brian,

Where do you get the idea that my world is gloomy? Do you think those who are feverishly working to socialize and turn our profession over to government control live in a sunny world?

Besides the edge that those of us who refuse to accept that our profession is best served by government intervention is so large that it only brings a smile to my face.

I mean, to know that tens of thousands of dollars of licensing PAC money and thousands of man-hours of work to dot every "i" and cross each "t" can be flushed down a rats hole with a well placed newspaper editorial or a few well worded letters, wouldn't that knowledge alone give a bit of a rise to your step?

The next big campaign to slow those who are attempting to gain an unfair advantage over their competition through licensing legislation will come from the push to remove grandfathering clauses from home inspector bills, you may join the discussion here (http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15332) if you like.

All the best - Joe.

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 01:01 PM
As Mike said, we have had licensing for 11 years here in NC. With that perspective, there have been good and bad results.

The good: It has raised the bar for entry into the profession. We are required to pass a realtively difficult exam, prove financial responsibility and complete at least 12 hours of continuing education each year. This does put us more on par with other professions and creates a higher level of consumer confidence in Home Inspectors in NC. Plus, licensing creates a way to get the truely bad actors out of the profession.

The bad: Government control over the business is subject to all the problems and ills of any other governmental endeavor. Their urge to create confrmity (read standardized reports) and overreaction to minor problems by board members who do not understand the nature of the industry and with agendas of their own requires constant vigilance by Inspectors.

The truely ugly: By giving government control over the industry you open it up to the vagaries of state politics. Licensing board members are mostly political appointees and are subject to pressure from other interest groups (read realtors) that clearly DO NOT have the best interest of the Home Inspection profession at heart. This is what is playing out now in Raleigh. With some 60,000 realtors, making literaly millions of dollars in political contributions each year vs less than 2,000 Home Inspectors, making virtually $0.00 in contributions each year, who gets the ears of the legislators???

This is the playing field that licensing creates.

Right now we are fighting a move (from guess who) to prevent Inspectors from putting anything that can be interpreted as a safety upgrade into the summary sections we are already required to have. Examples: a 1920 house with a porch 6' off the ground and no railings. Lack of smoke detectors in the same house. A 1980s deck 10' off the ground, nailed to old Masonite siding with no bolts. None of these items could be included in the summary, meaning clients will not be able to ask for them in repair requests. Unfortunately many of them never read the body of the reports anyway once they see the summary. This proposal will eventually result in getting someone killed.

Good luck with licensing. If your state does require HI licensing be sure you have a strong, politically active state association. If you have multiple associations you had better learn to work together before it is too late.

As you can guess I get a bit wound up on this one......

dick whitfield
04-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Fred said:
Lack of smoke detectors in the same house. A 1980s deck 10' off the ground, nailed to old Masonite siding with no bolts. None of these items could be included in the summary, meaning clients will not be able to ask for them in repair requests.

Fred....I am wondering why a buyer can not ask for a repair that is not in the summary? I thought they could ask for any repair they wanted but the seller does not have to comply. I am in NC so I am truly interested in your repsonse to help CMA! Thanks!

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Dick,

The realtors are supposedly bound by the limitations of the sales contract. Unfortunately many of them lack the will to tell an aggressive or manipulative client that there are some things they cannot have. So, the obvious solution is to make the Inspector do the dirty work for them.

Unfortunately we have all seen buyers ask for everything in our reports, with no intention of making the repairs. They simply use our reports to beat up sellers on price. Sellers and realtors do have a legitimate interest in putting a stop to this, at least as much as possible.

What they want to do is make the summary compliant with paragraph 13-b of the Offer to Purchase, which basically limits repair requests to items not functioning as intended. They then interpret this to mean that it must have been a code requirement when the house was built. If not, it must, by their definition, be functioning as intended.

I can understand this if it is something like crawl space insulation or even ungrounded outlets in an older home, but something that is a clear and present safety hazard, but is not broken, should be in the summary, and the clients should be allowed to ask for it. Heck, even if they are not allowed to ask for it it should still be in the summary just to get the clients to understand how important it is.

If you are a member of the NCLHIA (North Carolina Licensed Home Inspector's Association, for the rest of you :-), I will be covering this in much more detail in the next Probings, due out in a few weeks.

dick whitfield
04-08-2007, 01:54 PM
Thanks for the response. What I got from what you said is that a buyer can still ask for repairs that are not in the summary but the realtors are trying to change that. Is that correct?

Deleted Account
04-08-2007, 01:58 PM
Good luck with licensing. If your state does require HI licensing be sure you have a strong, politically active state association. If you have multiple associations you had better learn to work together before it is too late.

As you can guess I get a bit wound up on this one......


Fred,

It appears that you have experienced the dark side of home inspector licensing and I feel your pain. We here in Florida are still fighting the good fight, wish us good luck.

The one thing it appears that you have totally backward is the notion that home inspectors working together across associations is helpful in stopping the spread of licensing. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the only thing that happens when home inspectors begin to work together is compromise and piss poor legislation that gets enacted into law.

States where there are groups of home inspectors working at cross purposes in regards to licensing have the very best chance to defeat legislation. Remember, that to legislators you are not a home inspector but a voter, as a matter of fact that is the way they see everyone, and the very last thing they want to do is to disappoint a voter.

So... when they see a group of voters who can't agree on something they themselves have little knowledge of like home inspector licensing, it paralyzes their thinking and creates doubt. Agreement or harmony within our profession will guarantee the passage of licensing and must be avoided at all cost it is really our only hope.

Joe.

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 02:15 PM
Joe,
With all due respect.....
You do have an interesting strategy. Might even work, for a while. Eventually, though, other interests are likely to see a fractured and disorganized Home Inspection profession and decide they have a clear path. Here in NC we already have licensing, so we now have to deal with the political fallout. Sowing the seeds of confusion among your opponents is always excellent strategy, but when you are working in a political environment with this much at stake you had better have your own ducks in a row.

Deleted Account
04-08-2007, 02:38 PM
Joe,
With all due respect.....
You do have an interesting strategy. Might even work, for a while. Eventually, though, other interests are likely to see a fractured and disorganized Home Inspection profession and decide they have a clear path. Here in NC we already have licensing, so we now have to deal with the political fallout. Sowing the seeds of confusion among your opponents is always excellent strategy, but when you are working in a political environment with this much at stake you had better have your own ducks in a row.


Fred,

It has worked here for 15 years and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to work.

In a nutshell everyone including legislators know that licensing has failed to live up to its billing or the expectations of those who have worked so hard to get bills passed, essentially home inspector licensing has failed in the following areas.

1). raising the bar
2). limiting competition
3). protecting the consumer

Licensing’s failure lies in the fact that the efforts to get home inspectors licensed has not been derived from consumer complaints of being cheated by home inspectors but by home inspectors seeking an unfair advantage over other home inspectors in the marketplace, and the legislators were wise enough to see the charade of attempting to pit one class of voter against another class of voter and acted accordingly. Where licensing has been enacted, the legislators not seeing any outcry from disgruntled consumers did pass laws but these laws set the bar so low that any voter would be allowed to enter or continue in performing home inspections. So, the conditions almost everywhere licensing has been passed is a weak mishmash of gibberish that does little to protect the consumer or limit the incompetent home inspector from receiving a license, in essence home inspector licensing laws are little more then a nuisance tax on our profession.

Couple that fact with a state like Florida which has mandated Sunrise laws already on their books and you get 15 years of legislation and no laws enacted. No, we will continue to sew what continues to grow and gets harvested. Our new crop includes working to eliminate all language regarding grandfathering. By forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops necessary to be licensed the language that is commonly inserted to allow a slect group of home inspectors to ride free can be nullified.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that many high ranking office holders in many HI associations have never had to comply with the current entry requirements foisted on their new applicants. By forcing these old dogs to submit to the same tests and requirements that they want everyone else to comply with to be licensed will surely help reduce their taste & enthusiasm for licensing legislation.

Since it is very provable that licensing solves nothing, the next move should be to get these useless laws that encumber honest hard working home inspectors (read voters) and serve no public good repealed.

All the best.

dick whitfield
04-08-2007, 03:56 PM
I have been a licensed NC HI for 4 years but I have been a licensed electrical contractor for 32 years, a licensed HVAC contractor for 27 years, and a licensed plumber for 23 years. I have to say that in NC there are very few rogues in any of the trades I mentioned above. They get weeded out fast due to shoddy work. I like to read the trade newsletters with the violations of the riff-raft.

Before I went after my HI license I made sure it was not a useless, any-one-can-get license. In NC you have to have some degree of knowledge. I was looking for something that was a bit easier on the body than trade work but I did not want to waste my time if it did not mean anthing.

I think that if a state allows a person to hang up a HI sign with no license then what have you got? In my opinion....nothing but a person that may have knowledge but may not. No offense meant but at least in NC you have a way to complain if you get a bad inspection. In a unlicensed state a buyer has no recourse except court.

I am proud to be a licensed NC Home Inspector. If NC did not have licenseing I would not have become a home inspector.

I have to get a permit to do a electrical, plumbing, or heating job. I would not be opposed to the having to get permit to do a home inspection. I like regulation..it makes what I do more valuable.

This is my opinion....yours may vary.

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 04:16 PM
[QUOTE=Joseph Burkeson;1202]Fred,
......
essentially home inspector licensing has failed in the following areas.

1). raising the bar
2). limiting competition
3). protecting the consumer

Generally I would agree, except for # 2. It has been useful for limiting competition. As far as raising the bar, yes, but to a lesser degree than most people thought. It does offer marginal protection for the consumer, but I would argue that the market itself does a far better job. The incompetent Inspector gets no referrals, and soon he is looking for a different line of work.


Couple that fact with a state like Florida which has mandated Sunrise laws already on their books and you get 15 years of legislation and no laws enacted. No, we will continue to sew what continues to grow and gets harvested. Our new crop includes working to eliminate all language regarding grandfathering. By forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops necessary to be licensed the language that is commonly inserted to allow a slect group of home inspectors to ride free can be nullified.

Not sure what Sunrise laws are. Can you tell me how that works?


Furthermore, there is no doubt that many high ranking office holders in many HI associations have never had to comply with the current entry requirements foisted on their new applicants. By forcing these old dogs to submit to the same tests and requirements that they want everyone else to comply with to be licensed will surely help reduce their taste & enthusiasm for licensing legislation.

That is how it was done in NC, everyone had to pass the exam and prove financial responsibility. No one was grandfathered in.


Since it is very provable that licensing solves nothing, the next move should be to get these useless laws that encumber honest hard working home inspectors (read voters) and serve no public good repealed.

Ahh, a true Libertarian!

Problem is, politics, like all nature, abhors a vacuum. Government is loath to give up power once gained, particularly when powerful interest groups (read large campaign contributors) have something to gain.

I am glad you have had success so far. Best of luck in the future.

Mike Schulz
04-08-2007, 04:24 PM
home inspectors seeking an unfair advantage over other home inspectors in the marketplace, and the legislators were wise enough to see the charade of attempting to pit one class of voter against another class of voter and acted accordingly.

Joe that doesn't hold true here. In fact most home inspectors where scared just like you. It hurts until it's over, then you'll say what was all the fuss about. The Realtors brought about the Lic. in this state. They cried over every little thing because it was hurting there sales. I remember when I got my lic. in 96 the public was unaware of home inspections in the most part. The northerns who moved here really brought it in the lime light.

Fred has been with the NCLHIA for as long as I can remember and is up on all the topics and can fill you in better. He is also the editor at this time for our news letter. ( Fred I hope your hip is better!).

My business really did not take off until I was lic. When you can say you are lic. people trust you more then just being Jo-Smo.

Being part of the NCLHIA has been great. They have been a important part of bringing things to the NC board and try to bring justice to the home inspection field.

We have been fighting for our rights for the new standard summary. If we didn't the Realtors would run us over and the board would act in there favor.
If you ask me there should be no Realtors on the board. Thats like putting a fox in the hen house.

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 06:51 PM
Mike,
Thanks for the kind words, both for myself and the Association. My hip and knee are doing much better, thanks.

Joe, Mike is pretty much right on target about how things played out for a while here in NC. If you do wind up with licensing, just be sure your board is dominated by Home Inspectors, otherwise "other political interests" will tend to dominate.

Ironically, the one realtor on our board, John Hamrick, has, in many ways, been the Home Inspector's best friend. He has a good understanding of the business, common sense and a lot of influence. He has put the brakes on several moves by the "unfriendlies" in the real estate industry. Unfortunately John has been there for 11 years and may not remain much longer, and I am very concerned that the realtor replacement may be the opposite. In which case we (and homebuyers in NC) are in deep doo doo.

Fred Herndon
04-08-2007, 07:01 PM
Thanks for the response. What I got from what you said is that a buyer can still ask for repairs that are not in the summary but the realtors are trying to change that. Is that correct?

Dick,
Sorry I missed your message earlier. My understanding, and I am not a realtor, nor do I play one on TV, is that clients can ask for pretty much anything, but the realtors are supposed to limit repair requests to items covered in paragraph 13-b. I will talk to realtors this week and see what I can learn. If I come up with anything different I will pass it on, or maybe just put it in the next Probings, since most people on this list are probably not interested in NC real estate law anyway.

dick whitfield
04-08-2007, 07:08 PM
Thanks Fred...I look foward to the Probe...

John Graham
04-15-2007, 11:05 AM
Regarding the NYS Inspection Lic: I belong to ASHI and NAHI Local chapters and there is one inspector from both associations on the NYS. Board. Both men are serious about getting the changes in the law right, not fast. They believe that this will to protect both the home buyers and Inspectors.
I understand that they are working on the SOP and Training now. Good Things do take time. JG

Jerry Peck
04-15-2007, 11:54 AM
Joe.

As shown by your posts above, you continue to be against anything which will require you to act and become professional ... at least, that's the way your posts come across to me. :)

You seem to be anti-licensing and keep saying that HIs should be ruled form within, but you are against those controls too, unless you happen to fit in.

The problem with policing-from-within is that it has failed for over 30 years now, and it will continue to fail.

You rail against licensing 'because it will not protect anyone', yet fail to mention that 'no one is protected without licensing'.

Your logic, if there is any, continues to escape me.

And, no, I am not 'one of those' you keep referring to who are pushing for licensing. *I WAS*, but really no longer care, there are too many 'new guys' like you who insist that they cannot be made to do any better - and then you refer to 'everyone who does not think like you as "licensing Nazis".

Tim Moreira
04-15-2007, 11:06 PM
Jerry,


"licensing Nazis".


Did you get that from you buddy "Herr Montenbuler"? ;)

Joseph P. Hagarty
04-15-2007, 11:23 PM
From my involvement in Licensing in the States that I actively chose to participate in...

There is a disparity between what the Legislators want and what the HI Industry wants.

Legislators look at Licensing from a revenue standpoint (Minimum Entry Level Standard)....

Home Inspectors look at licensing as a "Raising the Bar" and/or preclusion of Entry to the Industry Standard/Standpoint.....

Holding to this Standard precludes Licensing from occurring and also increases revenue to Legislators knowledgeable of the wants and needs of the HI Industry.

This is what you call a Win-Win scenario.

Deleted Account
04-16-2007, 02:53 PM
Your logic, if there is any, continues to escape me.


Perfect, just what I had hoped for when I started, anything short of no licensing is a compromise and ultimately leads to licensing.

Universally chaos rules, enough chaos injected into any system leads to increased entropy and imminent failure for that system.

Licensing abhors chaos and seeks order and agreement to become law, insure that this does not exist and chances are good that licensing can't be realized. Its like trying to cultivate corn on a coral reef or grow oranges at the south pole.

Compromise=Licensing

Jeffrey Mathis
04-16-2007, 03:57 PM
This is one of the more curious threads I've read lately. I personally don't see any point in railing against licensing. If you're good at your job, licensing cannot hurt you. Does the minimal fee structure set anyone back? Can a decent Continuing Ed program be anything but beneficial? Note I said decent CE. Something we're getting better at in N.C.
Will there always be bad eggs in any industry? Sure. But I not only think, but I'm sure that licensing eliminates a certain number of hacks watering down my market share. Now not as much as hack realtors mind you, but that's a story for another thread.
I keep my contractor's license and it's a lot easier to get that license than an HI license. No CE, no experience, just pass a test. A decent licensing program will have to have a greater experience coefficient than even N.C. I think I should not have been allowed a license strictly because I was a licensed contractor and could pass a multiple choice test.

But a decent licensing board does serve a purpose (and I choked only a little saying that).
And I'll go further and say that E&O should be required. It just should be predicated on volume and more competition is needed.

Jeff Mathis
Grimesland, N.C.

Thom Walker
04-16-2007, 04:15 PM
Okay, I lied. I said I wouldn't comment on licensing again. I posted a long (too long probably) explanation of how licensing will never make a difference until licensing and insurance are addressed as separate issues. Since the format changed I can't find that post.

The short version........ Despite Tim's apparent belief, insurance doesn't make one better at this job or more professional. It MAY sometimes protect the consumer, but certainly not always. It MAY sometimes protect the Inspector, but almost never.

More expensive licenses, significant training to get the licenses and keep the licenses, and significant contributions to a recovery fund that is awarded through mandatory binding arbitration would protect the interests of home owners from fly-by-night inspectors and inspectors from frivolous lawsuits.

I'm with Dick. I wouldn't do this job without a license. However, I think E&O benefits lawyers and few others.

Scott Patterson
04-16-2007, 07:33 PM
The most vocal folks who are against licensing, I have noticed fit into the following categories:

1. It might be that they would have trouble meeting the requirements.
2. It might be that they don't think they need insurance.
3. It might be that they simply do not like anyone telling them what they need to do.
4. They are being told by others that licensing in bad.

Deleted Account
04-16-2007, 07:43 PM
In regards to all those who work hard to promote licensing there appears to be a set of similar tendencies the licensing proponents all have in common, a poker player would call them tells. once known and understood they could easily be used against them to help destabilize their efforts.

The licensing proponants are all imbued with righteousness indignation, believing that their stand is the proverbial high road and they are somehow benefiting society and fostering the greater good, something akin to being a crusader. To their detriment and demise it is totally beyond their puny scope of existence to even consider the notion that their efforts are in direct opposition the the freedoms and principals our country was founded on.

When defeat comes to a group like this who believe they have god on their side and their fight is noble they become devastated and disillusioned, it is at the exact precipice of defeat that we who oppose the socialization of our profession can do the most good by making it as painful as possible. How many of the licensing Nazis who poured their heart & soul into getting licensing passed in New Hampshire will be back next year to once again possibly get their teeth kicked in? Not many, that group will be forced to reinvest and regroup just to fight the very same uphill battle once again with new untested troops, the natural bias against getting legislation passed will once again have to be overcome.

Another weakness all licensing proponents display is the propensity to believe their own rhetoric and propaganda which makes them very vulnerable to outbursts of anger when you screw with one of the tenets of their belief system.

Remember it takes hundreds of man hours to diligently craft a licensing bill and then it takes thousands of dollars to see that bill through the legislative process but it only takes one dedicated person to spoil all that hard work and effort sending them back to the drawing board next year. Be that person.

Licensing solves nothing, chaos rules!

Thom Walker
04-16-2007, 08:18 PM
Scott,
It's not at all that I don't think I need insurance. It's why I need insurance that gets to me. I need insurance because I may get sucked into a lawsuit that I wouldn't be in otherwise, if it weren't insurance. I speak from experience.

NOBODY cares more about consumer protection than I do. At the same time, I have no interest in swelling the pockets of attorneys and insurance companies at the expense of Inspectors or Companies. Again, if all Inspectors were required to pay into a meaningful recovery fund consumers would be protected.

I don't know how it is in TN, but in TX lawsuits are more popular than Nascar. Insurance companies are in business for the same reasons we are....profit. I'm just saying, remove the profit incentive and get serious about protecting the consumer AND the tradesmen. Insurance settlements are about getting them out the cheapest way possible. It has nothing to do with defense or justice. And if you, the insured, are uninsurable afterward so be it. I would have no trouble at all paying the same amount that insurance costs every year into that recovery fund.

And after saying all this I am reminded that I've given 7 hits to a site selling what I don't believe to be beneficial to anyone. Go figure!:)

Tim Moreira
04-16-2007, 08:56 PM
Thom,


The short version........ Despite Tim's apparent belief, insurance doesn't make one better at this job or more professional. It MAY sometimes protect the consumer, but certainly not always. It MAY sometimes protect the Inspector, but almost never.


I don't ever recall making that statement. When/Where???:confused:

Matt Hawley
04-17-2007, 05:06 AM
Everyone should have to meet their states minimum requirements. There should be know grandfather clause and everyone should have to take a 120 hour class and the states test, one can never stop learning, correct?

We have thousands of home inspectors in Florida that this bill, due to what is referred to as a "grandfathering clause", will not even address. If legislation such as this is necessary, which many feel it is not, why would our legislators even consider allowing thousands of home inspectors to be exempt from it? It makes no sense. No grandfathering will help ensure that the inspectors at least know the basics and did not get a free pass because the simply payed for an occupational license 3 years ago. The Florida bill is a joke and offers no consumer protection. Do away with the grandfather clause.

I know there is no consumer protection without a bill, which is true. I am not aware of a huge out cry from the consumers that we need to be licensed anyways. How can a bill that many inspectors will be exempt from ensure the public the inspector they choose is competent? With this bill we do not even have to take the exam.

Scott Patterson
04-17-2007, 06:19 AM
As a proponent of good licensing and having worked in two licensed states, I have seen the benefit of licensing. I look at home inspector licensing as a form of protection, first for the home inspector and secondly for the consumer.

I keep on hearing of lawsuits against home inspectors in the states the have mandated E&O, simply because they have the coverage. Can anyone share a case or state that this has happened?

Lawsuits usually start when a home inspector screws up, or they ignore the alleged problems and calls, letters from a client. This is what drives my EW business, trying to defend home inspectors or helping those that have the problem.

I'm not a fan of mandated E&O, I think it should be a personal choice. With that said I would not work without it.

Tim Moreira
04-17-2007, 02:35 PM
Matt,

Are you in Florida?

Please update your profile so we know where your at.

Thom Walker
04-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Tim,
If I have misinterpreted, please forgive. I don't know if it was the deleted thread from this link or another, but I seem to remember your having said something about an Inspector who "probably didn't have E&O." I took that to mean what I insinuated about your opinion. Again, if that is a misstatement, please accept my apology.

Scott,
I can give two from personal experience. One was brought on 7 years ago by a Realtor who was being sued for $20M by a widow for her plumber husband's electrocution. Though the electrician admitted full responsibility for jumping a gfci receptacle to "fool the Inspector" if he came back (I never was called for a reinspect), the Realtor claimed that saying "No ground fault protection and reversed polarity. DO NOT USE THIS RECEPTACLE UNTIL REPAIRS ARE MADE. Using this receptacle may result in electrocution." was not strongly enough worded that she should have been concerned about the problem. As an aside, the Realtor's slum lord mother owned this POS I inspected. I hired a lawyer to watch the E&O lawyer because they were going to strike a deal to get them out and leave me in. $15,000 in fees later I was exonertated. Important. The widow never sued me. The Realtor's Insurance company brought in everyone that had E&O. Two years after the suit I Inspected a home that had eerie similarities and almost identical infractions. Guess who owned it?

Case two, about 5 years ago. Three years after an inspection, a Client sued me and the seller because he had drywood infestation in the wood shingles of his overlay. I am not a termite inspector. "The infestation caused water infiltration that ruined everything in the house because of the mold, including all the wood furniture and granite counter tops." The suit was for $490,000 on a $290,000 house. Their Insurance company had already paid them for all repairs to the house and for all loss of personal belongings. Court ordered mediation was dictated. The Plaintiff always goes first. They brought pictures of the rehab process. Several contrators had quit. The house had sat for months with an opened roof. The contractor who actually completed the work couldn't be found to testify. The mold experts had no recognized certifications. No termite company would testify supporting their allegations. Fortunately, I did not have to hire a second lawyer this time because I knew the attorney for the E&O company and he knew me from work I had done for him. After their presentation a break was taken and my attorney called the Insurance Comapny with the recommendation to go to court. The E&O company said to offer them $10,000 to be split between the Plaintiff, the Lawyers, and the other Insurance Company. Further, he was instructed to give them 5 minutes to mull over the offer. At the end of five minutes we were to walk out. They took it.

In neither case did I receive any contact before I served with the suit, so there was no opportunity to investigate or address concerns. I don't believe that law suits usually start for the reasons you stated. I believe they sometimes start for those reasons, but as frequently they start because lawyers and professional suers (sewers) accurately assess that most Insurance Companies will settle out of court rather than take the chance of a jury awarding more than the settlement costs. Counter suing for frivolous is practically impossible. In order to prevail, it must be proven that the Plaintiff absolutely knew his position was frivolous.

Serendipity strikes. Last month I did a job for a lawyer who hired me after I had been the third party Inspector in a case he had litigated. He asked me if I remembered the Plaintiffs in my second case. I assured him that I would never forget them and asked him why he had asked? He told me that they are well known around town and had, since my case, sued 5 or 6 other contractors in unrelated matters.

I may be the only one with examples for you, but I doubt it. I hope others will give them.

Scott Patterson
04-18-2007, 07:21 AM
Thom, things happen.

You got caught up in the typical "Shotgun" lawsuit. They go in and name everyone and everyone gets caught in the blast. I had one like this about seven years ago as well and it was over termites. I don't know of anything one can do to stop this type of lawsuit.

I did not realize that TX had a mandated E&O. What I was talking about were the states that have mandated E&O.

Thom Walker
04-18-2007, 07:36 AM
Sorry, got caught up in the moment and didn't mean to confuse. Texas does not have mandated E&O. I had elected to have it. If they mandate it, I will figure out what else to do for a living.

I don't feel the same about mandated liability insurance, but no one ever mentions that.

One more rant...Two years ago our illustrious Gov signed into law a medical malpractice cap for punative damages. It's $250K. So a Doctor can kill your kid or amputate the wrong leg and be liable for less than a home inspector who errs or omits.

Tim Moreira
04-18-2007, 05:48 PM
Thom,


Tim,
If I have misinterpreted, please forgive. I don't know if it was the deleted thread from this link or another, but I seem to remember your having said something about an Inspector who "probably didn't have E&O." I took that to mean what I insinuated about your opinion. Again, if that is a misstatement, please accept my apology.

This may have been what you were thinking. I was referring to the fact that this guy most likely didn't have anything to sue for. Either way, no harm done.

From anther thread:

Re: Agents inspector missed a bunch.
I wonder what the buyers would have thought if they trusted the other inspector and bought the place?

This inspector is just waiting to be sued. Probably does not care. Most likely no insurance and 10 bucks in the corporate account. Sue him and he closes shop, opens another corporation, files for the same fictitious name as before and he's back in business without even having to make up new brochures.

Sad but ofter true.

PS: I would have liked to have seen the seller's disclosure on the house. Probably nothing noted. Seller: "I've never noticed any problems" :rolleyes:

Matt Hawley
04-18-2007, 06:49 PM
This is where a mandated consumer recovery fund would be helpful.

Scott Patterson
04-18-2007, 07:10 PM
This is where a mandated consumer recovery fund would be helpful.

Do you know how and what a Recovery Fund is or works? It is not as simple as it sounds. I think that Texas is the only state with a Recovery Fund at this time and that might be for a good reason.

Matt Hawley
04-18-2007, 07:44 PM
Scott,

I know it's a fund, which is available to compensate consumers who have suffered losses due to a home inspectors fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest practices.

It would offer the consumers some protection. Please fill me in on the dis-advantages of having one. Thanks in advance.

Deleted Account
04-18-2007, 07:55 PM
Do you know how and what a Recovery Fund is or works? It is not as simple as it sounds. I think that Texas is the only state with a Recovery Fund at this time and that might be for a good reason.



It is quite obvious to most folks that more laws rarely solve any problem and in most cases only make things worse. Consumers have all the recourse necessary already through the court system proving there is no verifiable need to encumber home inspectors through senseless licensing legislation. Save your time and resources for something worthwhile.

Jack Feldmann
04-18-2007, 09:10 PM
Joe,
Speaking from experience, we had a lot more than just one voice speaking out against licensing, to no avail. It was coming thru no matter what we did to fight it. The best we could do was try to minimalize the damage, and try to get something we could live with. Now, don't try to give me that crap about how we didn't try hard enough, cowards, liars, blah blah blah. You were not here, and have no idea what was going on in TN.

While I have found that licensing has not really made any change in my business, who knows what changes may come at the whim of some elected yahoo in the future. New Jersey is a perfect example of that fisaco.

I wish you well in your fight, but I will go out on a limb and predict that FL will be a licensed State within 5 years - probably sooner. I would be willing to wager that in 5 years, there will be at least 5 more States licensed.

You may want to start checking out the map for a State that doesn't even have licensing on the agenda - then move there. You will be safe for a while.
Or you may get enough support (and checkbooks) to lure those elected idiots away from the licensing focus.

At any rate, good luck with your fight.
JF

Deleted Account
04-18-2007, 11:18 PM
I wish you well in your fight, but I will go out on a limb and predict that FL will be a licensed State within 5 years - probably sooner. I would be willing to wager that in 5 years, there will be at least 5 more States licensed.

You may want to start checking out the map for a State that doesn't even have licensing on the agenda - then move there. You will be safe for a while.
Or you may get enough support (and checkbooks) to lure those elected idiots away from the licensing focus.




I will fight it here to the bitter end, if & when it happens I like the thousands of inspectors in Florida will be licensed. They can't write a licensing law here in Florida that I can't comply with, after all... I am an ASHI member too. :D

Scott Patterson
04-19-2007, 06:45 AM
A little birdie has just told me that Georgia will be one of the next states to have home inspector licensing legislation introduced. It will most likely mimic the laws in several of the other surrounding Southern states.

Deleted Account
04-20-2007, 05:17 AM
Well another one bites the dust... Home inspector licensing in the sunny state of Washington went down in flames, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the TIJ board could be heard all the way down to Tampa.

My guess is that it will take at least another $100K and ten thousand man hours to get this thingy through next year. Another win for freedom, liberty and the American way and another blow to socialism and big government.

I hope the licensing boot-licker's are feeling the agony of defeat as the winners eat their Wheaties the Breakfast of Champions. :D

Next year should be the best when the grandfather clause is eliminated and all the licensing pushers will have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else to get licensed, its gonna get messy, be sure to wear long pants.

No Grandfathering In Home Inspector Licensing Laws!

Tim Moreira
04-20-2007, 10:16 PM
I guess we won one for the Gipper ;)

Harvey Hempelstern
04-21-2007, 02:25 AM
Way to go, Washington. Missouri will be the next state to defeat pending licensing legislation. Then, Florida.

Remember when everyone thought that licensing was inevitable? Now there is discussion of repeal in states where it has failed to deliver.

Anthony Veith
04-21-2007, 09:19 AM
Hello to all from Louisville, Kentucky. This is my first post on this board.

Kentucky past it's lisence law in 2006. The grandfathering period was over at the end of this january. This is the reason that I am now becoming a home inspector. I like structure.
I've been an electrician in the past. It takes years of experience, school, apprenticing under a lisenced electrician to become proficient at the trade. This is all to insure that your work will be done in a professional and safe manner. Now I work for Ford.( I think you know how my company is doing.)
I have waited until now to join the home inspection profession because of the lack of structure. I like the fact that I am required to show education and testing(NHIE) to begin the career.
I feel the service that is provided with home inspection is not just the report, but the knowledge of the individual behind the flashlight. I would be hypocritical if I did not hold myself to at least the same standard as the tradesmen that built the house I inspect.
The more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I am. I have a lifetime to satisfy my need for knowledge.

Deleted Account
04-21-2007, 10:30 AM
I have waited until now to join the home inspection profession because of the lack of structure. I like the fact that I am required to show education and testing(NHIE) to begin the career.



Anthony,

Welcome to the board, well all I can say is that you like other licensing proponents are consistent in the reason why we should all be licensed. It is always about you and what licensing can do for you, I should have known.

Joe.

Anthony Veith
04-21-2007, 10:57 AM
Quite the contrary Joe. I firmly believe that the profession is about consumer protection. Ensuring the public that there is a standard of education, testing, and insurance within their area helps the potential homeowner. It reasures them that an inspector has basic knowledge and offers additional avenues if they hire a bad apple.

Most consumer groups tell individuals that before you hire anyone to check credentials and insurance.(Kentucky requires general liability) This helps reassure homeowners who have an inspector coming through their house.

If in the process of consumer protection from the state I get inconvenienced by educating myself, both parties win.

Matt Hawley
04-21-2007, 11:44 AM
We can structure our own industry without Gov involvement.

Jerry Peck
04-21-2007, 12:50 PM
We can structure our own industry without Gov involvement.

Matt,

Have not been able to for over 30 years, why do you think that is possible now, with home inspectors EVEN MORE fractured than before?

Self-policing is not going to work. Never has, never will. At least, not unless you are the fox ... the chickens will disagree (I am sure).

Anthony,

"I feel the service that is provided with home inspection is not just the report, but the knowledge of the individual behind the flashlight. I would be hypocritical if I did not hold myself to at least the same standard as the tradesmen that built the house I inspect.

The more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I am. I have a lifetime to satisfy my need for knowledge."

You have an excellent insight into this profession and what is involved.

Welcome aboard inspectionnews.com and welcome to the Home Inspection Profession.

We (HIs) need more like you.

Joe,

"It is always about you and what licensing can do for you, I should have known.

Joe."

And with you it's all about defeating something you dislike even though it will be the best for the profession and for the public, but not for "Joe", so you are like all the others you complain about ... It's all about what's for you.

Rick Bunzel
04-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Joe,

You are misinformed. The Washington Bill did not go down in flames. It in fact passed. As we had hoped, the Senate passed the bill amended by the House and the bill will go to sunrise review by the Department of Licensing. A lot of work by The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group, ASHI, NAHI and Washington Association of Realtors got the billed into something that home inspectors in the state could live with.

It remains to be seen if the bill passes the Department of Licensing "litmus" test. Senator Spanel never shared the consumer issues that were driving the bill and WHILAG isn't aware of any issues. The DOL review timeframe was shortened from 2008 to 2007.

//Rick
Pacific Crest Inspections Home inspections located in Anacortes offers home inspections in Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom and Island Counties (http://WWW.paccrestinspections.com)

Scott Patterson
04-22-2007, 08:38 PM
Joe,

You are misinformed. The Washington Bill did not go down in flames. It in fact passed. As we had hoped, the Senate passed the bill amended by the House and the bill will go to sunrise review by the Department of Licensing. A lot of work by The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group, ASHI, NAHI and Washington Association of Realtors got the billed into something that home inspectors in the state could live with.

It remains to be seen if the bill passes the Department of Licensing "litmus" test. Senator Spanel never shared the consumer issues that were driving the bill and WHILAG isn't aware of any issues. The DOL review timeframe was shortened from 2008 to 2007.

//Rick
Pacific Crest Inspections Home inspections located in Anacortes offers home inspections in Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom and Island Counties (http://WWW.paccrestinspections.com)

Don't blame Joe, he got his conformation from Jim Bushart the NACHI spokesperson and head cheerleader!

Deleted Account
04-23-2007, 07:32 AM
If you guys truly believe that having your bill sent to review by the Sunrise committee is winning, well then let me know when we can all get together for a friendly little game of poker. :D

I hope the licensing proponents here in Florida are as victorious as those in Washington State. :)

Deleted Account
04-24-2007, 10:15 AM
Old Star Trek clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACxv767LR1A) reveals how to defeat the efforts of the pro HI licensing lobby... Or maybe I'm just lying. :D

Enjoy!

Tim Moreira
04-24-2007, 11:34 AM
I think this thread has now surpassed the *garage door testing methods* thread.

OK now, don't make me ask the question, "How do you all test gara....."

:D

Deleted Account
04-24-2007, 12:11 PM
I have been asked to compose a letter to balance the one being circulated by NAHI here in Florida, I am posting it here for anyone to use in whole or part.




Dear Governor Crist:

From your years as Florida Attorney General and now as our Governor it is apparent that your goal is to protect the citizens of Florida. As a professional member of the Florida home inspection industry, I too seek to protect the consumer when making the single most expensive purchase they are likely to ever undertake, we are on the same team.

Today you are being presented the option to enact home inspector legislation into law here in Florida. At first glance House Bill 1399 and Senate Bill 2234 appear to be a viable way to set standards for the home inspection profession and insure the public will attain some modicum of protection. A true study of the bills provisions though would reveal they are lacking in any language that would set a minimum standard of care to protect the consumer. The bills are deficient in that they have no written Standards of Practice, nor is there any Code of Ethics upon which to guide the home inspector in his duty’s to the public. Furthermore the bill does not provide the consumer any information on what constitutes an inspection or what expectations can be relied upon when an inspection is performed. What really pains me and the majority of home inspectors in Florida is the association who is pushing hard for the passage of this legislation is the very same organizations that allows their members to perform repairs on homes they have inspected, which is clearly recognized as a conflict of interest by all other respected home inspection associations.

If you take the time to truly read this bill you will readily see this bill is not in keeping with the high standards that you have set for your administration and I respectfully request that you veto this legislation. Signing this poorly written legislation that lacks any set of standards into law would give consumers a false hope of protection where none currently exist within the bills.

We know your conviction to the citizens of Florida and your fervent desire to protect them, please send this legislation back to the House and Senate and demand this bill be amended to include language which would truly set Standards of Practice that will protect the public.

Tim Moreira
04-24-2007, 09:41 PM
Joe,

I like it.

Can you send him one like that on our home owners insurance so that we all don't end up moving out of the state in the next three to five years. :cool:

Harvey Hempelstern
04-25-2007, 03:33 AM
The sponsor of Missouri's bill, Mike Parson, announced to a reporter in the state capital that he is not advancing the bill. It is dead. Missouri remains free from home inspection legislation.

Deleted Account
04-25-2007, 06:25 AM
The sponsor of Missouri's bill, Mike Parson, announced to a reporter in the state capital that he is not advancing the bill. It is dead. Missouri remains free from home inspection legislation.


It appears that using chaos theory and exposing your opponents dirty deals to the light of the free press is a valid method of defeating home inspector licensing legislation bills throughout the country.

Uncovering the clandestine dealings between the so-called home inspector coalition & the Realtors exposed the sham to the`public for what it was... a protectionist plan to allow Realtors to control the home inspection industry in Missouri.

What is your assessment of how much time & money was thrown down a rats hole on a supposed done-deal slam-dunk licensing legislation bill in Missouri?

I figure a quarter of a million dollars were wasted, imagine the results had those dollars been funneled into marketing & education instead of this nonsense? Hopefully next year the true concerned home inspectors of Missouri will help to empty the licensing Nazi's coffers and send them to the poorhouse once and for all. :D

Michael P. O'Handley
04-29-2007, 09:45 AM
Well another one bites the dust... Home inspector licensing in the sunny state of Washington went down in flames, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the TIJ board could be heard all the way down to Tampa.


Really?

Joe, you're going to have to point me to those threads, because what's been happening in Washington State hardly made a blip on TIJ. Hardly anyone from outside of the state showed any interest and I'll be darned if I can find one post with wailing or gnashing of teeth - even metaphorically. You haven't been dragging plastic wrapped bales of brown vegetable matter out of the ocean off the coast down there and been smoking it have you? Joe, you sly dog! Who would have ever expected you to be a potty-head?


My guess is that it will take at least another $100K and ten thousand man hours to get this thing through next year. Another win for freedom, liberty and the American way and another blow to socialism and big government.


Holy Sh*t! Did someone actually spend $100K trying to get that bill passed? (Oh, wait a minute - I see a reference to "blow" in there. Now I get it.) Funny, I thought it was the most powerful Democratic Senator in a Democratically-controlled state senate who got a bug up her butt about licensing who started the whole thing without anyone spending a dime. As best I could tell, nobody on either side of the issue spent much at all. Some gasoline to drive to Olympia. A few dollars on coffee and snacks once or twice a month. Maybe a little for bandwidth for some e-mails. But no real expenses for anyone in favor of it or anyone trying to defeat, as far as I could see.

Maybe one or two inspectors lost a job or two, because they chose to attend the hearings in Olympia, but there weren't any fancy high-paid lobbyists running around Olympia trying to wine and dine anyone. Heck, it wasn't even that much of an issue in Olympia. Despite the noise that folks on both side of the issue made for months, not a whole lot of people showed up for any hearings. The truth is, there's a lot of apathy here toward the whole subject of licensing and the number of people actually making noise is comparatively few compared to how many inspectors there actually are. Most inspectors here probably sort of yawned and said, "Home inspector licensing law? Really? Wow, I had no idea. Well, I've gotta job to go to, so let me know how it comes out."

Despite all of the rhetoric coming off of this and the NACHI board about how the people who were behind it are involved with training or are established inspectors who wanted to keep out competition, I couldn't find one single person in the state who could corroborate that with any real facts. Where do you get your information. You must have some amazing sources down there in Florida, Joe.


I hope the licensing boot-licker's are feeling the agony of defeat as the winners eat their Wheaties the Breakfast of Champions. :D


Maybe so. Could you tell me who they are, so I can interview them? I live up here and I can't find a whole lot of folks that were happy about the prospect of licensing, let alone any that could qualify as boot lickers. Oh, wait a minute. I just remembered, wasn't it your buddy Nick Gromicko who told Larry Stamp that he was personally pushing SB5788, and that when he, Nick Gromicko (not NACHI), pushes something, it usually gets passed? So, I guess Nick would be one of those so-called boot lickers who is feeling the agony of defeat. Huh! Who would have ever thought that with all of those members' dollars, that he could have used for a lobbyist, eating a hole in his pocket that Nick would have been defeated. Wow! I guess that is something to crow about.


Next year should be the best when the grandfather clause is eliminated and all the licensing pushers will have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else to get licensed, its gonna get messy, be sure to wear long pants.

No Grandfathering In Home Inspector Licensing Laws!


That's a helluva crystal ball you've got there, Joe. Gosh, it must be fantastic to be so all-knowing and wise. Can you teach me the secret of how one accumulates all of that wisdom and becomes so worldly?

OK, I truly don't know where Joe comes up with this stuff, but if he were to submit to a urine test to determine whether he's been dabbling in happy smoke, we might come to understand. Anyway, here's what's I can tell you about what's going on in Washington State - the licensing bill - SB5788 - is NOT dead. It's been temporarily sidelined while a sunrise review is being done.

We hope the bill is dead, but we won't know until the sunrise review is completed and returned to the house committee that sent it there. Then, depending on what the Department of Licensing reviewer has uncovered and recommends, it could once again rear its ugly head. The simple truth is that the most powerful democratic senator in a democratically controlled state government in a heavily democrat state, for whatever reason, wants to notch her holster with this bill, and unless someone can change her mind, it's liable to be revived this fall and see passage early in the next legislative session, because she's acting like a pit bull clamped onto a bull's behind and doesn't seem to want to let it go.

As of 10 days ago, which is the last time I talked to anyone from DOL about this, DOL still hadn't assigned the study to a specific caseworker because it hadn't officially begun the process yet. As soon as they get it the clock starts ticking and they have a certain time line to meet specific benchmarks in the sunrise review process. When they begin, they'll start soliciting input from home inspectors and anyone else they think the proposed regulation will impact. Maybe that will be the alleged "stakeholders" that the Senator told the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee had all been 'consulted' at the first public hearing on the bill.

The sunrise review is a study to determine whether the proposed legislation is justified. It is done only at the request of the chairs of the legislative committees. The only victory that anyone can ballyhoo is that they've managed to get the bill punted to DOL for the Sunrise Review. If Senator's Spanel and Kohl-Welles have their way, the sunrise review might just end up being a minor speed bump and nothing more.

According to legislative guidelines here, it's the intent of the state legislature that all individuals have the right to enter into any business profession, unless there is "an overwhelming need for the state to protect the interests of the public by restricting entry." Enhancement of professional status alone is not enough to justify regulation. Now, I've never seen where there are are hundreds of reports of incompetent home inspectors on the TV news or in the newspaper here. I did see where KIRO7 suddenly dug up an old still-unsettled case from about 4 years ago that one of the Senators conveniently used as a backdrop to declare her resolve to put controls on home inspectors, but that is about it, so one would logically expect that a fair process would see the bill's demise. One would logically expect that, but I think it's too soon to count chicks.

Anyone who wants to know more about the sunrise review process can find out more about it at The DOL website. It will explain that a business profession should be regulated or its scope of practice expanded only when:

"-Unregulated practice can clearly harm or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public, and the potential for the harm is easily recognizable and not remote or dependent upon tenuous argument;

-The public needs and can reasonably be expected to benefit from an assurance of initial and continuing professional ability;

-The public cannot be effectively protected by other means in a more cost-beneficial manner."

That said, if they decide that a profession must be regulated, it's policy that they implement the least restrictive method of regulation that's consistent with the public interest.

So, let me give you the Reader's Digest version of what's going to happen:

DOL assigns it to a caseworker.

That caseworker is responsible for researching laws in other states to see what's worked, what hasn't worked and what affect - positive or negative - licensing has had on the profession.

That caseworker will collect input from stakeholders, special interest groups and others.

That caseworker will figure out what regulation will cost and whether there is sufficient number of inspectors in the state to pay for it.

The caseworker will turn his/her results over to his honcho and then the honcho will decide whether he/she feels the proposal is justified and there's a way to pay for it, based on the data the caseworker collected.

If DOL decides that regulation isn't warranted. or the benefit doesn't justify the cost, it's sent back to the committee chair with a recommendation to kill it.

If DOL decides that it's necessary and there are sufficient numbers of home inspectors to pay for it, but that the law is too restrictive, they'll send it back with a recommendation for modifications.

If DOL decides that it's not too restrictive and it's necessary, and the program will generate enough revenue to pay for itself, it will get sent back with a recommendation for passage.

From there, it's back into the legislators' hands.

They can still kill it, if there is overwhelming opposition and they're afraid it will hurt them politically. That's not likely. Home inspectors here as a demographic have about as much power as a gnat on a bull's ass. Without powerful allies, they're pretty much at the mercy of the pols.

If the legislators don't think it will hurt them and could do them some good politically, while still benefiting the consumer, they'll probably pass it, in which case, it's sent to the governor for signature.

The governor, also a lady democrat, will probably sign it, unless there is a really good reason not to. This is where DOL's sunrise review can come in handy, because DOL also recommends to the governor whether they think it should pass or should be defeated. If DOL doesn't recommend passage, there's a chance she'll veto it.

If there aren't enough votes to override a gubernatorial veto, then it dies and not before.

Folks in Washington State on either side of this issue should neither be congratulating themselves nor feeling defeated, because this bill is still far from dead. The DOL guy said they called it the "bill that wouldn't die."

So, inspectors, take this "scorecard" with a grain of salt and keep your ears to the ground in your own states, instead of giving credence to the megalomaniacal rantings of an inspector in another state who has less than a clue about what you have to go through in your own.

For those of you in Washington State, if you're really interested in this thing one way or the other, write to your pols and talk to influential friends about it and ask them to write to their pols, because the sunrise review is all about gauging interest one way or the other.

For more information about the process, go to: WA State Licensing: Sunrise review reports (http://dol.wa.gov/about/sunrise.html)

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley

Deleted Account
04-29-2007, 10:55 AM
Mike,

As always thanks for your contribution to our little licensing thread, it would certainly be a dull world if we all agreed. In regards to blowing smoke, an old Irish proverb so eloquently says... Smoke your pipe and be silent; there's only wind and smoke in the world. Good advice if you ask me.

Joe.

Deleted Account
04-30-2007, 11:10 AM
Defeated Missouri Home Inspector bill follow up. (http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost.php?p=196651&postcount=82) Posted for all the folks who said it couldn't be done, good work Missouri!

Randy Aldering
03-17-2008, 03:55 PM
The reason that licensing proponents have such a difficult time getting bills passed is because those who favor licensing are by & large liars and the legislators are on to the lies. Had the inception of licensing been sprung from the loins of consumers we would have been licensed decades ago. But the push for licensing is not consumer driven no all licensing laws were created by home inspectors seeking to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. The good thing is that it takes very little effort to inject chaos, create doubt or an atmosphere of disharmony.


Inject what you may. But make sure it is the truth. THAT, is not.

Deleted Account
03-17-2008, 05:32 PM
Inject what you may. But make sure it is the truth. THAT, is not.



And... What is truth?

Michael P. O'Handley
03-17-2008, 07:06 PM
Update:

I'd completely forgotten about this thread. Well, this year the same Senator, for the 3rd January in a row, again introduced a bill in the Senate to regulate home inspectors.

This time, the Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group (WHILAG), a coalition made up of home inspectors from all of the associations as well as independents, had done their homework and she found herself facing a companion bill introduced in the house that WHILAG had authored, as well as many key legislators that WHILAG had educated about the profession. Seeing the prospect of another killed bill, she finally invited WHILAG to meet with her and work out differences between her bill and the WHILAG version. The bill then breezed through the senate, went on to the house where a couple of slight housekeeping amendments were made, and then it passed the house 93 to 0 and is currently on the governor's desk awaiting her signature.

In the end, through WHILAG's efforts, backed by some strategic lobbying, home inspectors ended up with a board made up of 100% home inspectors instead of the real estate folks and educators that the senator had originally wanted on the board. There is no requirement to be a member of any home inspection organization, in order to be a member of the home inspectors advisory board, and no more than two members from any single home inspection organization may sit on the board at the same time. So, technically, it's impossible for members of any single home inspectors' association to control the board. In fact, it's just as likely that the board makeup could be 100% independents, or made up of one from each of the nationals and the rest independents. What's key though, is that it will be home inspectors and not non-inspectors making decisions about our profession.

But that's not the most significant thing; if she signs this bill into law, home inspectors here will finally, after 18 years, again be separated from the pest inspection business and will be able to write up rotten wood and conducive conditions, without the need to be licensed as a pest inspector and carry coverage for pest-related issues. To those of you in the majority of other states where that's the norm, that's no big deal, but here it is huge 'cuz it was the pest guys who foisted that rule on us back in 1991 and it's been sand in the shorts of home inspectors ever since.

Whether or not licensing will not "solve" anything, as Joe is so fond of saying, won't be known for a few years. We should be able to tell you whether it was a good thing or a bad thing for inspectors here somewhere around the middle of 2011.

First though, one thing at a time; let's see if she signs the bill into law or vetos it.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Raymond Wand
03-18-2008, 05:07 AM
As the way it should be. Congratulations, hope it passes reading.


In the end, through WHILAG's efforts, backed by some strategic lobbying, home inspectors ended up with a board made up of 100% home inspectors instead of the real estate folks and educators that the senator had originally wanted on the board. There is no requirement to be a member of any home inspection organization, in order to be a member of the home inspectors advisory board, and no more than two members from any single home inspection organization may sit on the board at the same time. So, technically, it's impossible for members of any single home inspectors' association to control the board. In fact, it's just as likely that the board makeup could be 100% independents, or made up of one from each of the nationals and the rest independents. What's key though, is that it will be home inspectors and not non-inspectors making decisions about our profession.

Deleted Account
03-18-2008, 06:23 AM
As the way it should be. Congratulations, hope it passes reading.



I'll be willing to bet thousands that if & when licensing comes the board will be populated with political appointments from the Governors office and those who do in fact become board members will be clueless as to who we are and what we do.

Inspector disappointment with the process & results of licensing legislation is the number one outcome experienced when working with the government.

Elected officials will forever and always put their re-election priorities before doing what is right and that is why incompetent home inspectors are handed a license, they are after all voters too.

Raymond Wand
03-18-2008, 06:46 AM
Inspector disappointment with the process & results of licensing legislation is the number one outcome experienced when working with the government.

Well if thats the case then inspectors need to assure their interests are represented which does not appear to have been the case in every instance of licencing.

Cheers,

Deleted Account
03-18-2008, 07:08 AM
Well if thats the case then inspectors need to assure their interests are represented which does not appear to have been the case in every instance of licencing.



And just how do powerless home inspectors insure that their interests will be represented when working with lying, cheating government officials who's only goal is to be re-elected?

The wise home inspector would be much better off resisting any intervention of government into our profession. There simply are no cases where state licensing has benefited our profession, none.

Raymond Wand
03-18-2008, 07:32 AM
Okay Joesph, whatever you say. You seem to be the lone voice of reasoning to suit your agenda. Carry on! :cool:

Harvey Hempelstern
03-18-2008, 06:55 PM
It appears that Missouri HB 2057 proposing the licensing of home inspectors has been shelved.

No one could show the "Show Me" state a demonstrated need.

A room full of dejected ASHI presidents had to leave the conference room to look for inspection work, having had their hopes of making money mentoring inspectors under the new bill dashed to pieces.

Raymond Wand
03-18-2008, 07:02 PM
James,

No doubt to see your posts everywhere on licencing, everyone owes you a great deal of gratitude. For once your big mouth staved of licencing!

Btw James why do you feel it necessary to hack this board and the ASHI board, after your little rant about hacking?

Deleted Account
03-18-2008, 08:01 PM
It appears that Missouri HB 2057 proposing the licensing of home inspectors has been shelved.

No one could show the "Show Me" state a demonstrated need.




I congratulate the wisdom of those leaders in Missouri who saw past the empty promises and false sense of consumer protection touted by those who push licensing as the panacea that will cure all of our profession's ills. The licensing proponents remind me of dime store novel snake-oil barkers who push their worthless colored water in fancy glass bottles at carnival sideshows.

Furthermore I hope the license pushers pissed away their entire bankroll in this useless folly and that word spreads far & wide that resistance is not futile regarding home inspector licensing and that bills can be defeated.

Florida is a perfect example of failed home inspector licensing legislation. Since the bill's signing the effective date has been pushed out once and it still has not been funded. Faced with the cut-backs Florida will endure the money may never materialize, and if it does there is a group preparing to get the state attorney involved in nullifying the bill based on the sunrise study.

Remember, chaos is the fabric of the universe and all systems gain entropy, In other words... it don't take half as much effort to tip the applecart as it did to load it.

Bravo Missouri!

Steven Meyer
03-27-2008, 11:40 AM
Licensing vs non licensing

Either way, it still comes down to "buyer beware"

There are good and bad inspectors in any state with licensing and does not have licensing.

I don't see where licensing will deal with/find/take out bad inspectors.

The free market will take care of that, in both situations. Bad inspectors will be found out (license or not), will lose business, and thus financially forced out of business.

The good drives out the bad

Consider other licensing: doctors, lawyers, Real Estate Agents etc. They all have their share of bad apples, however don't see/hear of those licenses being revoked very often.

Consumer protection NOT!!! The consumer should always research, get recommendations, and should not rely on government licensing as a gurantee of a competent person, no matter what the profession/industry.

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 11:50 AM
And who protects the inspectors from unscrupulous associations if there is no outside oversight, never mind the public?

Harvey Hempelstern
03-27-2008, 12:30 PM
The last I heard, membership in "associations" (unscrupulous or otherwise) is voluntary. Protecting one from his own choice is about as Socialist as you can get.

Michael Larson
03-27-2008, 12:43 PM
And who protects the inspectors from unscrupulous associations if there is no outside oversight, never mind the public?
“Things cannot always go your way. Learn to accept in silence the minor aggravations, cultivate the gift of taciturnity and consume your own smoke with an extra draught of hard work, so that those about you may not be annoyed with the dust and soot of your complaint.”
Sir William Osler

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 12:46 PM
Joe B.

I like the last paragraph of the letter you drafted to Govenor Crist.


We know your conviction to the citizens of Florida and your fervent desire to protect them, please send this legislation back to the House and Senate and demand this bill be amended to include language which would truly set Standards of Practice that will protect the public.

So you really do support licencing as long as it meets a SOP that will protect the public!

Thats great news. Congratulations. I couldn't agree with you more!

Cheers,

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 12:49 PM
Michael,

Going my way? Thats funny coming from someone of your ilk and lowly qualifications. Btw did you ever find your flashlight? I know where it is.

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 12:51 PM
James

You are being a hypocrite again, considering your record of abuse of power!

Michael Larson
03-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Michael,

Going my way? Thats funny coming from someone of your ilk and lowly qualifications. Btw did you ever find your flashlight? I know where it is.Raymond, you're so predictable. Better watch out, Brian doesn't like personal attacks on his board.:(

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 01:00 PM
Michael

Whats the matter Michael, don't like the heat?

Michael Larson
03-27-2008, 01:02 PM
Michael

Whats the matter Michael, don't like the heat?Excuse me?

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 01:05 PM
.... okay you are excused. :D

Michael Larson
03-27-2008, 01:24 PM
.... okay you are excused. :DNo heat in here.
There is a lot of smoke however.

Raymond, if you love licensing so much I suggest you move to the states. Maybe Texas would suit you.:)

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 01:34 PM
Michael

Do you have any room at your house? :confused: I hear there is a lot of smoke at your house! And I don't mean the meat smoker out back. :p :)

Michael Larson
03-27-2008, 01:41 PM
Michael

Do you have any room at your house? :confused: I hear there is a lot of smoke at your house! And I don't mean the meat smoker out back. :p :)Hearing voices again?

Up your meds Raymond.:rolleyes:

Steven Meyer
03-27-2008, 01:46 PM
Raymond Wand

The same applies to HI organizations. Buyer beware Research, ask questions of others, Get all the advice you can get, then you can make a educated decission. Knowledge equals personal power and responsability.

So, in your world then, all HI organizations should be subjected to licensing? And I guess that would apply to just about any organization? Don't know about you up accross the northern boarder, but we have this nifty little right, in our constution, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

You seem to believe that government, through licensing, can protect you from yourself. Freedom, try it, you might like it. Now, take a deep breath of fresh air, before the government a licenses(and taxes) that.

How about a litte personal responsibilty in the decissions we make in life.

And, when, will we need a license, so we can make decissions on our own????

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 01:52 PM
Michael

You don't tolerate heat very well! :(

Raymond Wand
03-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Steven,

We need protection from ourselves. Anyone who has been in the game long enough and has first hand experience with associations knows that they are anything but self policing. Therein lies the problem vis-a-vis the public, no outside scrutiny or accountability results in the rules being bent for special interests.

Ron Bibler
03-27-2008, 06:03 PM
Think of some one from the your state comming into your office. Putting his boot on you desk. then pulls out a hanky and starts to shine the tips of his boots and looks you in the eyes and says may i see your papers!

This happen to me one time.

California Structural Pest Control Board.

You guys can't just rool over on this one.

Then they want a X $ for each inspection and give you 10 days to report all your address.

best

Ron

Deleted Account
03-27-2008, 06:52 PM
Some of us have been pro licensing for quite some time, others have been anti-licensing and still the vast majority of home inspectors are ambivalent and clueless, the net-net result of all this hooey has been a proliferation of weak licensing laws that fall far short of their intended goals.

I have said all there is about this dilemma and other to have the privilege of saying "I told you so" nothing of value was accomplished. I am through with this losing battle of attrition and will have no further say on the subject, my time & resources are limited and better spent on worthwhile goals that produce fruit for me. Besides there is not now, nor will there ever be a licensing requirement that I can't meet.

So, I am declaring myself free from carrying this anti-licensing torch and you can all clean up after yourselves, especially Mr. O'Handley who I suspect will soon be up to his elbows alligators vainly attempting to drain the Washington swamp. Thanks for the ride, Adiós.

Billy Stephens
03-27-2008, 07:06 PM
.
So, I am declaring myself free from carrying this anti-licensing torch --- AdiĂłs.

Ah Joe,
.
Don't go away mad. :)

Michael P. O'Handley
03-28-2008, 03:28 AM
So, I am declaring myself free from carrying this anti-licensing torch and you can all clean up after yourselves, especially Mr. O'Handley who I suspect will soon be up to his elbows alligators vainly attempting to drain the Washington swamp. Thanks for the ride, Adiós.Ah, Joey Chubbycheeks, you give me too much credit. Although I've made it my business to know what's happening with this law, I really had very little to do with it, other than to help some folks form a coalition to address a flawed bill a little more than two years ago. I really wish I was as smart and capable of engineering all of the machinations that folks are always attributing to me. If I were, I'd be rich and spending my days on a warm beach someplace instead of slogging around sloppy crawlspaces for a living.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Raymond Wand
03-28-2008, 03:53 AM
Or....you could spend your time with Nick in Colorado! :D :eek:

Harvey Hempelstern
03-28-2008, 04:08 AM
It would appear by his many recent outbursts against NACHI that Wand's efforts to regain his membership with them has failed.

Raymond Wand
03-28-2008, 04:22 AM
Outbursts James?

Strange considering your private emails laced with profanities! You sure have an extensive vocabulary! You should set an example for others instead of being the proverbial jaw bone of a donkey!

Whens the next sitting of the Kangaroo Court?

Jerry Peck
03-28-2008, 07:42 AM
Some of us have been pro licensing for quite some time, others have been anti-licensing and still the vast majority of home inspectors are ambivalent and clueless, the net-net result of all this hooey has been a proliferation of weak licensing laws that fall far short of their intended goals.

I have said all there is about this dilemma and other to have the privilege of saying "I told you so" nothing of value was accomplished. I am through with this losing battle of attrition

"Some of us have been pro licensing"???????

Joey, you are putting yourself in the "us" of "some of us"??

You don't fit in there at all.

You do fit in the "others have been anti-licensing" category.


"the net-net result of all this hooey has been a proliferation of weak licensing laws that fall far short of their intended goals"

Let's see, YOU (specifically "you", not as in 'you' meaning plural) have fought and resisted licensing which contained ANY semblance of decent
strength, and now YOU are lamenting the weak license laws which have resulted in part from YOUR and others rantings?

"I am through with this losing battle"

Yeah, you lost that one, and REALLY LOST, because of your efforts to make everything weak - and now are complaining that they are weak.

"So, I am declaring myself free from carrying this anti-licensing torch "

See? There you go again.

"Thanks for the ride, AdiĂłs."

Don't let the screen door hit you in your butt on your way out ... :D

William Mize
03-28-2008, 10:11 AM
:) Gentlemen:

Allowme to wax philosophically (spel chk sad it wuz OK) about inspector licensening. I have watched this thread with interest and amuzement.

First, Oklahoma is a licensing state and was before I began my inspection business, I had even planned to start the business before I did but the Inspector Licensing Law passed and I decided to wait until things had settled down before starting doing inspections. After the bureaucrats had everything set the way they wanted it I got my waterfoul arrayed in a linear fashion and got my license to perform home inspectors.

Second, Inspector Licensing is never about making inspectors do better jobs. For the politician backing inspecton licensing it is about "Look at what I am doing for you home buyers the inspectors are required to do this or that" it's what polilticians do best politicize. For the bureaucrats it is about jobs and job security. When a government office becomes overstaffed they look for ways to expand their jobs and guess what "hey politico did you know we don't license home inspectors and Texas or what ever state just passed a licensing law and now they have all this money coming in from the fees they require.

Third, licensing is coming in your state, maybe not today or tomorrow but it will come with state budgets the politicos are looking for new sources of revenue and in Oklalhoma's case it is a lot easier to charge the Home Inspectors X$ for this and Y$ for that than to increase taxes by .1% and this is true in all states. So... Whether you are a Pro-Licensing or an Anti-Licensing it is goingtohappen.The best thing for Home Inspectors to do is to get on board and make the Inspection Licensing laws the best they can be.Get involved and help determine who is going to be on governing boards, get involved with continuing ED requirements. Put aside the organizational differences and work together and build a better Profession and we are or should be professionals.

In conclusion as I stated I have watched this thread with interest and amuzement and I have been dismayed by the verbal urinating contests some of you think is cute and the outright profane inuendos that some are famous for.

Is the Oklahoma Licensing Law good, NO could it be improved YES. what would I change, I ain't gonna tell cause somebody would do it and I wouldn't get the credit I deserve. And every states licensing regulations could use some tune-up.

Finally one of the personal beliefs I have is the quote "It is better to keep your mouth shut and people think you are a fool than to open it and prove them right"

Have a good day inspecting.

Willie

Steven Meyer
03-28-2008, 11:12 AM
RAYMOND WAND

We need protection from ourselves? NO We need protection from an over reaching government!!!

I have the faith that an individual can vote with their feet (and check book)

As a case in point, years ago a lumber company I delt with really ticked me off, this after having years of my business. My response to their poor service/attitude, was I found a lumber company that offered better service, and never went back to the other company. It was not long that the first company went out of business, so I assume others felt the same as I did. This company HAD been in business for many many years.

This example applies to ANY organization, any business. It is the consumer who really has the power, not the other way around.

THE free market does work!!!


The good does drive out the bad.

I guess we will have to agree, to disagree.

I believe in personal choice, you believe the government knows best.

I have faith in the individual, your faith is in the government.

Raymond Wand
03-28-2008, 12:01 PM
Steven

If that was the case with your supplier you should have told him about the lack of customer service. Its far easier to leave and say nothing than it is to let someone know so that they may correct that which they may not be aware of. I know associations that are run without accountability, and many members don't have the wherewithal to speak up, and simply walk away.

My faith is not in the government, but when all else fails an there is no one to fall back on then you better have someone where the buck stops.

As to the government know best, well in some cases yes they do.

Cheers,

Steven Meyer
03-28-2008, 01:13 PM
RAYMOND

You can be assured they were aware of my displeasure. After placing my order, and not getting what I wanted, and would work for me, (their attitude/statement was that's just the way we do it), I "unloaded" on the store manager, cancleled my order, and walked out. Fun part is that they called later, told them no, I went elsewhere, and no, they would no longer get my business.

This also applies to associations. If you just drop out, don't pay your dues, think they get the message. If you want to send a letter and vent your displeasure, ok. If enough people do that, it should put those in power on notice, they better change their ways.
Problem solved!!!

Don't think ANY industry association is need of government oversight. Joining an association is strictly voluntary (well, except in union states)




Steven




If that was the case with your supplier you should have told him about the lack of customer service. Its far easier to leave and say nothing than it is to let someone know so that they may correct that which they may not be aware of. I know associations that are run without accountability, and many members don't have the wherewithal to speak up, and simply walk away.



My faith is not in the government, but when all else fails an there is no one to fall back on then you better have someone where the buck stops.



As to the government know best, well in some cases yes they do.



Cheers,

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=William Mize;37734]:) Gentlemen:

Allowme to wax p[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]hilosophically (spel chk sad it wuz OK) about inspector licensening. I have watched this thread with interest and amuzement

William, I believe that a truly creative mind can easily come up with many ways to spell any given word, but if you are relying on Spell-Check for the spelling of words in a way that would be acceptable to those with less creative minds, you'd better check your Spell-Check program....AmuZment???

Me, I figure that if someone can spell a word in any way that I can understand its meaning on any Internet BB, then they've done a good enough job for me

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 02:38 PM
RAYMOND WAND

We need protection from ourselves? NO We need protection from an over reaching government!!!

I have the faith that an individual can vote with their feet (and check book)

As a case in point, years ago a lumber company I delt with really ticked me off, this after having years of my business. My response to their poor service/attitude, was I found a lumber company that offered better service, and never went back to the other company. It was not long that the first company went out of business, so I assume others felt the same as I did. This company HAD been in business for many many years.

This example applies to ANY organization, any business. It is the consumer who really has the power, not the other way around.

THE free market does work!!!


The good does drive out the bad.

I guess we will have to agree, to disagree.

I believe in personal choice, you believe the government knows best.

I have faith in the individual, your faith is in the government.


Not a bad example Steve, but say the order you placed was for several tsand dollars, maybe even 10's of thousands, and the product you received was wrong and of no use to you. Then say the company you purchased the product tells you to go screw yourself, so then you end up having to spend the same amount again to finish your project and then you attempt to recover your costs, and legal costs, by taking the company to court, only to find that the Company has no money and no assets, leaving you holding the bag.

Now say you are a home buyer who, like most, know nothing or little about what is right or wrong about the condition of the home you are buying so you hire a Home Inspector who, due to lack of knowledge/experience or just plain incompetence or even dishonesty, misses a major fault in the home, you purchase the home and then find that it will cost you thousands to repair the condition, but find that, like the Compay who screwed you, the Home Inspector has no money or assets?

True the buyer may not use that inspector again, but then how often does the buyer purchase a new home, and complaints to Realtors etc. may even put the inspector out of business, at least in the name is was using.

It's not the Inspector who needs protection, although a State Law with a strong SOP backed by the Law does offer some, but its mainly the consumer who needs the protection.

Laws like the one just passed in Washington do nothing to protect either the Consumer, most HI Asscoiations already have higher standards than those in the new law, the law may provide a little protection for the HI because it does establish a "standard" which thecan claim they meet,

If a State can come up with no better law than what most have came up with, then maybe they should just adopt a law similar to Idaho's General Contractor regulation, register and provide proof of $300k of Liability or E&O insurance or bond.

A wothless Law is worse than no law at all.

I hate it when I agree with Burkeson.

Harvey Hempelstern
03-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Laws, like the one just passed in Washington and those introduced in other states, have nothing to do with the consumer.

No home inspection law ever proposed in any state was consumer driven. No consumer or advocacy group has ever lobbied for or publicly supported a home inspection bill or law.

The only consumer group to voice a public opinion on a home inspection bill was HADD (Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings) in their announcement of opposition of HB 2057 in Missouri.

Consumers do not care about home inspection legislation and never have.

Home inspectors who desire to make money from other home inspectors through legislation and home inspectors who hope to eliminate competition....do this, they say...in the interest of "the consumer". Why? Because to tell the truth and explain that they do push this legislation to further their own personal interests does little to build support for their bill.

Scott Patterson
03-28-2008, 03:14 PM
Laws, like the one just passed in Washington and those introduced in other states, have nothing to do with the consumer.

No home inspection law ever proposed in any state was consumer driven. No consumer or advocacy group has ever lobbied for or publicly supported a home inspection bill or law.

The only consumer group to voice a public opinion on a home inspection bill was HADD (Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings) in their announcement of opposition of HB 2057 in Missouri.

Consumers do not care about home inspection legislation and never have.

Home inspectors who desire to make money from other home inspectors through legislation and home inspectors who hope to eliminate competition....do this, they say...in the interest of "the consumer". Why? Because to tell the truth and explain that they do push this legislation to further their own personal interests does little to build support for their bill.

Jim Bushart aka. Harvey Hempelstern , you are so lame. Why does a law have to be just for consumer protection? It doesn't! A good home inspector law protects the home inspector in addition to providing protection to the consumer.

The fallacy is that most consumers already think that home inspectors are licensed. They do not have a clue that, say for example a person in your state of Missouri could be selling hearing aids today and decide the want to be a home inspector. All they have to do is have some cards printed up, buy a flashlight and a notebook! POOF!! They are a home inspector. Better yet they can take an unproctored easy to pass open book quiz and become a "Certified Home Inspector" from a diploma mill organization just as you did. Even better they can become a Master Home Inspector all by simply paying the man at the door, no real requirements that you would associate with a "Master" classification!

This is why we need to have home inspector licensing. To protect everyone, not just the consumer.

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 03:18 PM
The only consumer group to voice a public opinion on a home inspection bill was HADD (Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings) in their announcement of opposition of HB 2057 in Missouri.

The reason few groups of consumers have addressed the HI Licensing subject is that most of the public believe that, like Realtors, Home Inspectors are already licensed, they are confused between the fact that in most States HI's are required to have a Business License and are usually surprised when they find that there is no licensing or registration requirements by the State.

I don't know if it was you or Joe B. it's hard to tell the difference, who claimed that someone in Washington had spent $100K on getting the WA Bill Passed, that's totally B.S. and both of you know it, but it makes good sheep food.

Washington is an Initiative State, anyone who can gather enough signatures can bypass the State Legislature and get a Bill/Initiative placed on the State Ballots ask Mike O' and other WA Inspectors about a guy named Tim Eyman. In Washington any HI who wanted to spend some money to get his proposal made into law even if the sole purpose of the Bill was to eliminate competition. No one in WA went that way, in fact no one even went public, other than a couple of articles in a local paper. Even if someone had wanted to put some teeth in the Law that was passed they could have gone public with articles and letters to the editor arguing their opinions that the law provided no protection to the consumer, they could even have used examples from the Sunrise Committee to reinforce their argument, then things might have turned out different and the Bill might have ended up with an E&O or bond requirement.

I don't have any dog in the fight over there anymore, I may in the future if things change, but being WA's next door neighbor I'm sure one or two of Idaho's polititcians may take the issue up, one already approached me about the subject, a Republican at that, of course that's all we have here.

Michael Larson
03-28-2008, 03:32 PM
Jim Bushart aka. Harvey Hempelstern , you are so lame. Why does a law have to be just for consumer protection? It doesn't! A good home inspector law protects the home inspector in addition to providing protection to the consumer.Then why is this tactic used to in support of the proposed law if it.s not true?

A "good" HI law?
What protection is offered to the HI.
I can't even limit by liability via contract in my state.

Scott Patterson
03-28-2008, 03:39 PM
The only consumer group to voice a public opinion on a home inspection bill was HADD (Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings) in their announcement of opposition of HB 2057 in Missouri.

The reason few groups of consumers have addressed the HI Licensing subject is that most of the public believe that, like Realtors, Home Inspectors are already licensed, they are confused between the fact that in most States HI's are required to have a Business License and are usually surprised when they find that there is no licensing or registration requirements by the State.

I don't know if it was you or Joe B. it's hard to tell the difference, who claimed that someone in Washington had spent $100K on getting the WA Bill Passed, that's totally B.S. and both of you know it, but it makes good sheep food.

Washington is an Initiative State, anyone who can gather enough signatures can bypass the State Legislature and get a Bill/Initiative placed on the State Ballots ask Mike O' and other WA Inspectors about a guy named Tim Eyman. In Washington any HI who wanted to spend some money to get his proposal made into law even if the sole purpose of the Bill was to eliminate competition. No one in WA went that way, in fact no one even went public, other than a couple of articles in a local paper. Even if someone had wanted to put some teeth in the Law that was passed they could have gone public with articles and letters to the editor arguing their opinions that the law provided no protection to the consumer, they could even have used examples from the Sunrise Committee to reinforce their argument, then things might have turned out different and the Bill might have ended up with an E&O or bond requirement.

I don't have any dog in the fight over there anymore, I may in the future if things change, but being WA's next door neighbor I'm sure one or two of Idaho's polititcians may take the issue up, one already approached me about the subject, a Republican at that, of course that's all we have here.

Lewis, I would be very surprised if Idaho was to even consider a license law for home inspector in the next 3-5 years. Almost to the date, I had the pleasure of meeting and having dinner with Jeanne Jackson-Helm at the ARRELO meeting in Banff, CN., she is the ED for the Idaho Real Estate Commission. They are the ones who issue agents their license. She said that they just do not have enough inspectors in the state to justify the cost for licensing. Granted she had a concern that if a license was created it would be placed in her commission, as it is in several states.

Scott Patterson
03-28-2008, 03:44 PM
Then why is this tactic used to in support of the proposed law if it.s not true?

A "good" HI law?
What protection is offered to the HI.
I can't even limit by liability via contract in my state.

Michael, I don't know that it really is. I have been involved in various home inspector license laws and legislation efforts since 1998 and it has been very rare that I have heard the consumer protection mantra. Most of the time this what the anti-license folks use to say that nobody wants it.

Lewis described it very well
The reason few groups of consumers have addressed the HI Licensing subject is that most of the public believe that, like Realtors, Home Inspectors are already licensed, they are confused between the fact that in most States HI's are required to have a Business License and are usually surprised when they find that there is no licensing or registration requirements by the State.

Harvey Hempelstern
03-28-2008, 03:52 PM
Licensing is pushed by home inspectors looking to get out of the crawlspace and in front of a classroom, with a state law mandating attendance in their class.

Licensing is pushed by home inspectors who want to charge $275 to inspect to be competitive, then have four guys paying them $75 each to "ride along" on each one so they can "mentor" them. Your Stl Louis ASHI president presented this to his membership at a meeting in an attempt to convince them to support the bill.....that they all opposed.

Licensing is a scam....a way to get tax dollars to do for certain inspectors what their marketing dollars have failed to do.

You will never publicly admit it. That is a job for the opposition.

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 04:05 PM
Then why is this tactic used to in support of the proposed law if it.s not true?

A "good" HI law?
What protection is offered to the HI.
I can't even limit by liability via contract in my state.

Regardless of what you association tells you Michael, its SOP does not provide nearly as much protection as one that had been adopted by the State, neither does your "certification" when compared to having met the standards written into law. as meaningless as they most often are. Oregon I believe has a provision in its AHI Law that requires mediation through a State Board before a Lawsuit can be filed, isn't that protection for both the HI and the client?

In my opinion State Laws that do not provide proof of financial responsibility on the part of the Inspector provide little protection at all to the consumer. Until last year we had no regulation of General Contractors in Idaho, like other States with no regulation we had the problem of incompetent and dishonest Contractors either doing crappy work and then refusing to make repairs or restitution to their clients or dishonest Contractors who just took their clients money and ran, both often showing up again operating under another business name, and none having any money or assets for the client to recover. Now at least a contractor has to show proof of financial responsibility even though they may be almost totally incompetent.

You guys don't like laws, then how about if the businesses connected to the Real Estate Industry made their own rules. Say a Realtor was to put into their contract a warning that their clients should only hire HI's that met certain standards, or if Banks and Mortgage companies demanded Home Inspections to be performed by only those Inspectors who met their standards, it's their money they can add what ever requirements to a loan they want? Can you see the problem there, different Businesses coming up with different standards all designed solely for their benefit.

I've been doing quite a few Insurance Company Inspections lately on both vacant and newly purchased homes, the Insurance Companies have their own standards already, how long before the Financial Institutions develop their own, which may exceed State and Association Standards?

Michael Larson
03-28-2008, 04:12 PM
You guys don't like laws, then how about if the businesses connected to the Real Estate Industry made their own rules. Say a Realtor was to put into their contract a warning that their clients should only hire HI's that met certain standards, or if Banks and Mortgage companies demanded Home Inspections to be performed by only those Inspectors who met their standards, it's their money they can add what ever requirements to a loan they want? Can you see the problem there, different Businesses coming up with different standards all designed solely for their benefit.In a free country that is exactly where the push for standards should come from especially the insurance companies in the interest of loss prevention.

Government only messes it up.

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 04:35 PM
Michael, I don't know that it really is. I have been involved in various home inspector license laws and legislation efforts since 1998 and it has been very rare that I have heard the consumer protection mantra. Most of the time this what the anti-license folks use to say that nobody wants it.

Lewis described it very well

Scott, Most clients also believe that, again like Realtors , Home Inspectors are Insured. I like to explain to some of my clients that there is no requirment for licensing or regulation here, then I pause, and then tell them that there is no requirment for E&O Insurance either, pause again and watch the flash of panic cross their faces, and then I tell them that I am.

The "consumer protection mantra" is a very useful tool when someone interested in passing a Bill runs into opposition from the politicians. I'veen doing been involved in several initiative campaigns over the years, Protect the Consumer, Protect the Public almost always works. If I had still been doing business in WA as a HI when I found out that no bond or E&O Requirement had been included in the Bill I might have brought the "Protect the Cinsumer mantra" into play through local papers, TV, the Realtors Association, General Contractors Association, etc., politics is always a timing thing, what better time to push for "Consumer Protection" within the Real Estate Industry than right now in the middle of the meltdown? I just can't get that excited anymore about the subject, or politics for that matter.

I turned 60 a few months ago, Saling and Fishing are a lot more important to me now than even making money, I have a new, for me, 39' Sailboat calling for me to take off again for a few more years while I still can, but my wife has two more years before she wants to retire, women!

Raymond Wand
03-28-2008, 04:38 PM
Government only messes it up?

In my opinion its been the insurers messing up by paying out rather than fighting many of these cases as it is financially prudent for them to do so. Then they are quick to label the inspector as a bad risk. The government can only created bad legislation, thats why it is imperative inspectors who are under the sights of licencing had better make certain they are heard, this does not always appear to be the case from what I am seeing, but thats my take on it for what its worth.

Cheers,

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 05:06 PM
In a free country that is exactly where the push for standards should come from especially the insurance companies in the interest of loss prevention.

Government only messes it up.

You don't think too deeply Michael, I have nothing against businesses creating their own standards and requirements, I've argued for years about why the County or State should have the right to tell anyone how to build their house, Codes are fine but they should required and enforced by those lending the money or insuring the property, but they are Codes, they're standardized

A bunch of businesses making coming up with their own standards could lead to some pretty severe problems seeing as all those requirments would be written for their own benefit and not to any standard, it could end up with the various compainies having their own Home Inspectors, which is again fine with me, but that may do away with a lot of private one owner HI companies, it might be cheaper for them to have hourly wage Inspectors than to contract their inspections out.

Thsi meltdown the Housing and Banking industry is going through now is likely to effect the way things are done in the future, the Fed is planning on giving up to a Trillion $$ of borrowed money to banks and lending institutions to bail them out for their piss poor business practices, that money is going to come with strings attached. This is also a good example of your Free Country/Enterpris at work.

Michael Larson
03-28-2008, 05:32 PM
You don't think too deeply Michael, I have nothing against businesses creating their own standards and requirements, I've argued for years about why the County or State should have the right to tell anyone how to build their house, Codes are fine but they should required and enforced by those lending the money or insuring the property, but they are Codes, they're standardizedDeep thinking is not required to understand that government makes more messes than it cleans up.

Your beef is with lenders and insurance companies.

I'm not going to change your mind in thinking that government is the solution.

Government has a horrible track record of solving real problems let alone made up ones like the need for home inspector regulation.

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 05:36 PM
Lewis, I would be very surprised if Idaho was to even consider a license law for home inspector in the next 3-5 years. Almost to the date, I had the pleasure of meeting and having dinner with Jeanne Jackson-Helm at the ARRELO meeting in Banff, CN., she is the ED for the Idaho Real Estate Commission. They are the ones who issue agents their license. She said that they just do not have enough inspectors in the state to justify the cost for licensing. Granted she had a concern that if a license was created it would be placed in her commission, as it is in several states.

I was approached, while fishing, by one of my State Senators who had noticed the signs on my truck. He told me that the subject of HI Regulation had come up while discussing changes to the GC Law here and wanted to know what I thought of having the same type of regulation for Home Inspectors, registration and insurance.

The Idaho RE Commission most likely wouldn't be in control of the regulation. The GC regulation is controlled by the State's Bureau of Occupational Licensing, the Real Estate Commission, as in other States, has dreams of possibly controlling everything.

With WA getting an HI Law there may be some politician here who will want to follow along, unless someone does then you're probably right and there will be no licensing within the next few years, regulation like the GC's ugh might get sneaked through pretty quickly.

Either way they'd have to be pretty fast to effect me, I hear the call of Sailing off into the sunset, again, louder every day, I'm thinking about moving my boat back to New Zealand next year in preparation to my wife's retirement, I retired 8 years ago, went sailing for a couple of years, and then went back to work, I still deliver a boat from Puget Sound to California or Hawaii once or twice a year, I like to take my retirement a little at a time, while I can, the next time should be for good, turning 60 hurt, I hadn't even recovered from turning 30 yet.

Raymond Wand
03-28-2008, 05:48 PM
Licensing is a scam....a way to get tax dollars to do for certain inspectors what their marketing dollars have failed to do.

That refrain has as much credibility as you do. Will you; can you provide us all with documentation to back up those outrageous claims?

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 05:52 PM
Deep thinking is not required to understand that government makes more messes than it cleans up.

Your beef is with lenders and insurance companies.

I'm not going to change your mind in thinking that government is the solution.

Government has a horrible track record of solving real problems let alone made up ones like the need for home inspector regulation.

I have no beef with lenders or insurance companies, in fact I often bring the subject of them coming up with their own requirements for a Home Inspections when I talk to them

I'm not a great proponent of Government myself, my arguments about HI Regulation have always been that when faced with the inevitable, get the best deal you can.

If you don't like government interference then you must be as happy as I am about the FED giving, possibly, up to a Trillion $$$ of taxpayer money, which we have to borrow from China, to Banks and Lending Institutions to bail them out after their greed, arrogance, and mismanagement has lead to their failing. Maybe if they had been regulated they wouldn't have failed, seeing as they weren't then the lack or regulation and government interference should continue and the ones that failed should just go away, saving our children and grandchildren from paying off the loan required to "save" the same banks that paid the executives ten's of millions a year for running the company into the ground. Kind of like the avings and Loan Fiasco from back in the first Bush Administration.

Michael Larson
03-28-2008, 05:59 PM
They were regulated and threatened with more if they didn't start lending to sub prime borrowers and creating much of the mess we are now in.

And now the FED is bailing out Wall Street. Guess who gets to pay for it all? You and me and the rest of the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren.

They are so into controlling the economy they think they have no other choice.

Lewis Capaul
03-28-2008, 06:23 PM
They were regulated and threatened with more if they didn't start lending to sub prime borrowers creating much of the mess we are now in.

And now the FED is bailing out Wall Street. Guess who gets to pay for it all? You and me and the rest of the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren.

They are so into controlling the economy they think they have no other choice.

You might want to study the problem a little more Michael, Banks were and are regulated, Investment Institutions like Bear Sterns weren't and aren't, yet the FED is giving them Billions, 36 this week, without any regualtions or procedures in place to ensure that the same failures don't happen again. Remember that most of those who ran these companies have made Millions, what does it matter to them if their companies failed, the only one hurt by their failures are the stock holders who don't seem to have been upset over the past several years by the sub prime and minumum ARM loans their managers gave out.

If you want some ijnteresting reading google "Minimum or Option ARMs", I'd never heard of them until I was in Vegas a couple of years ago and saw ads on TV about how you could, with nothing down, purchase a $649K home for only $960 a month using a Minimum ARM Loan. Idiots throughout Nevada and Southern Cal jumped on these loans, not even paying the monthly interest on the loan.

Under these loans, many of which end up with a higher balance every month, once the payoff or balance reaches 110 to 120% of the value of the home, the loan is automatically recast with the payment amortized over the remaining period of the loan at the preset interest which for some loans was 10% or more, $960 a month becomes several thousand, and we're supposed to spend our tax money bailing out those idiots along with the companies that gave them the loan.....Free Enterprise, sure it is. Wefare for Everyone is more like it.

Michael Larson
03-28-2008, 07:16 PM
Lewis, you really need to stop inferring that I don't know what I'm talking about.:(

Lenders made easy money available to borrowers with low credit worthiness by using stated income loans(make up a number, no one will check), option ARMs, and 0 down loans. Lenders were "encouraged" (strong armed really) to loosen up their lending practices to include more low income and credit challenged individuals.
House flippers "investors" also got in on the easy money and when the bubble burst they all walked away as they now owed more than their properties were worth leaving the bank and now the trading houses who bought the mortgage paper holding the bag.

Everything was fine until the house of cards crumbled under its own weight.
Now the FED comes along and wants to bail out the the very people that caused much of the problem by investing in poorly secured paper. The best thing that could happen is for those who took the risks to take a bath.

You mentioned the Saving and Loan crisis of Carter administration origin.
The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses.

If government chooses to remove the moral hazard from granting a suspect loans and covers the risks of others we are in for a very rough ride. Better to fall hard and quickly than a prolonged broad based recession.

Steven Meyer
03-28-2008, 07:33 PM
gosh, golly.

LEWIS, et al,

MY post to Raymond and my anology was directed at his usual rampage against HI Nationl Orgs. He believes that they should be controlled by the government, to protect us inspectors from ourselves. My post was that if he didn't like the organization, he is/was in, he is quite free to quit and go elsewhere. That's the beauty of freedom of choice. Government is never the answer, when they get involved, everything goes to hell in a hand basket!!!
You do make a point: That analogy could be the same for any industry, and that it could be true with the HI industry so your turning it around on me can be a valid point.

Raymond and I just have a different political view of government. He has the belief that government is the answer, I fear government!

That being said:

Couple of points on Wa. legislation.

Just my point of view, some/many disagree with me, but freedom of expression is good!!

The good senator did in fact use "protecting the consumer" mantra as a reason for this legislation, seems she got some "complaints" from a couple of people in her district, but was a little "fuzzy" about the "details".

Of course, she could have used "do it for the children" which seems to be the mantra in this state, and workes every time it's used!! That was the mantra for the new over budget Baseball stadium (built for its Japan owner, pushed down our throats, after twice voting it down. It was for the children, who now can no longer attend due to one of the highest game ticket costs in the nation. raise cigarette taxes "for the children" (child health care) Raise hard liquor taxes "for the children" Schools. The only "for the children" tax that was ever turned down was a 10 cent a cup latte tax, Seattle elites, don't tax my choice of sin: (Grande Latte). It never ceases to amaze me, that they have no problem taxing me, but go screaming and kicking when a tax impacts them.

A little off the subject, but it does show how Washington legislation gets passed, with catchy phrases such as: consumer protection, for the children, for the environment, on and on goes the catch words. And being it's the catch word that grabs the attention on the voters (very few actually read the bill) these bills pass usually unapposed.

Inatitive process, better have some deep pockets!!! Tim Eyman deals more in tax cutting/spending, and has saved us thousands in tax dollars

Licensing???? Not overly joyed about it as written. But will live with it, it's now law, can't close the barn door after the horse has been stollen. Being that the issue was under my radar screen and I did not participate in the process, not for me to judge the outcome that others worked so hard on. As is said, "if you don't vote, you have no reason to bitch about the outcome"!!!

If it was really for the consumer, and had consumer stated protections (such as insurance requirements) and , if you will, a consumer "bill of rights" (hate that phrase), then it would truly be a " consumer protection" bill. this Licensing just does not equate to protection for the consumer.

I will side with Michael O Handley on this, he participated in the process of this bill, I did not, so think (know) he is a lot more privy to its meaning/workings than any of us.

I always go by the "follow the money". My understanding is that the license will cost in the 300 to 600 dollar range. Just another cost of business, that WILL be passed onto the consumer. (I always love it when voters want to stick it businesss with taxes/fees. Hate to bust their little bubble, I don't pay the taxes, the consumer does as a part of my cost of business, I am just the collection agency for the goernment!!

My view of a license, is register, be tested, show proof of insurance. Registration would at least be able to provide your address so the process server can find you. Now that's consumer protection!!!



HI, RAYMOND, keep them cards and letters coming!!!!!

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 04:52 AM
Steven posted:


My view of a license, is register, be tested, show proof of insurance. Registration would at least be able to provide your address so the process server can find you. Now that's consumer protection!!!


So you support licencing! Great; I knew that as a newbie inspector with all your opinions you would see the light!

Harvey Hempelstern
03-29-2008, 06:07 AM
One of you guys need to explain to your recent (rejected by NACHI) "member", Mr. Wand, the difference between licensing and registration.

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 06:20 AM
James why don't you fill us in on the difference?

And how come your attitude is so radically different here on this board than Nachi board where you rule the roost? I have seen many of your private messages and they are not painting you as the person you so desperately want to be seen as.

Darren Miller
03-29-2008, 07:33 AM
No home inspection law ever proposed in any state was consumer driven. No consumer or advocacy group has ever lobbied for or publicly supported a home inspection bill or law.


James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/associations-ethics-standards-licensing-legislation-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/6328-fight-good-fight.html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 08:23 AM
Can anyone explain to me how licencing restricts competition?

Thanks,

Harvey Hempelstern
03-29-2008, 08:35 AM
James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/associations-ethics-standards-licensing-legislation-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/6328-fight-good-fight.html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

A consumer who fought to change an existing HI licensing law to minimize a part of the damage it caused consumers....Lorraine Hutton....is a far cry from a consumer pushing for or advocating the need for a licensing law where one does not presently exist.

It has never happened.

Not once in any of the 32 legislative (registration, licensing, etc) actions across the country has a consumer or consumer group led the fight ..... or even participated.

Licensing is a scam.

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 08:53 AM
Licencing is a scam? Anymore than NACHI being a scam?

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 11:03 AM
RAYMOND

This is just to much work, you are just not paying attention/studying my internet Economics 101 course just for you.

REGISTRATION consists of:
name
address
phone number
insurance carrier and policy #

The above makes it easier for the unhappy customer to hunt you down and punch your lights out. It also serves their attorney and process server to also hunt you down.

State tax ID # (this is only state government protection, they want their
"piece of the action" called taxes.
Federal tax ID# Same reason as the state. See above.


LICENSING consists of:
Those items as noted above for Registration.
PLUS!!!!!!
Rules, limitations, regulations of your business, as the government sees
fit.
Restrictions for entering the market place.

So, study your lesson material again.

SUPPLY and DEMAND
Now, this is a concept we have not studied as yet, so here is a short outline of chapter 2.

SUPPLY: is the amount of goods or services available
DEMAND: is the amount of people who want those goods or services.

As an example of Supply and Demand, think of gasoline. As the supply goes down, AND demand goes up, so does the price for that commody.
The more customers for a product in limited supply, The higher the price that product can demand.

Now, you must wonder, does this have to do with licensing?

LICENSING, by its very nature, is restrictive, determines who can enter the business (think trade unions), And, therefore, becomes more of a protection for those already there, and discourages expanding the supply.
Therefore, supply is limited. prices rise. Then the next legislation you will see is price control, Of course to "protect the consumer"!!!!

CHAPTER 2 review
So, does licensing benefit the consumer? If the supply is limited, demand remains the same or rises, then what is the consequence of this?
Prices go up
Due to the lack of competition, the current SUPPLY side can charge as much as they want. Again, consider the gas price example.

CLASS DISMISSED

Your next assignment for chapter 3 is:
Government laws, regulations, taxes: the impact on small business

Study hard, your grade depends on it.






Can anyone explain to me how licencing restricts competition?




Thanks,

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 12:00 PM
RAYMOND,

With your total dislike.distrust for HI organizations, why don't you start your own organization? Then you can push for licensing of all those organizations (including your own).

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE

You would own the organization, making all those big bucks from us dumb, uneducated inspectors.

You would have your own bulletin board. And can delet those posts that are not for the common good. And no one can throw you off, just think of the power you would have in the discourse of ideas.

AND: your licensing dream would come true, Your organization along with all others, would be licensed and play under the same rules.

You really ought to think about this.

Could be a dream come true.

OPTION 2: Have you ever considered a cushy government job? You ought to fit in, you love government so much, and just think of the power you would have over your "subjects"!!!

Just a thought





Steven,

We need protection from ourselves. Anyone who has been in the game long enough and has first hand experience with associations knows that they are anything but self policing. Therein lies the problem vis-a-vis the public, no outside scrutiny or accountability results in the rules being bent for special interests.

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 12:21 PM
Steve

Nice opinions, and you can put the spin you want on licencing, but thats as far as it goes. Its obvious you would rather make a business decision rather than a professional choice.

I am still waiting for hard facts that licencing is a scam and still waiting and that it limits competition. The fact is it does not, just as it has not limited competition with plumbers, heating contractors as they are free to set their own costs/charges, just as contractors like yourself are free to set prices without restriction of any professional challenges interfering.

Thank you for your attempts, pretty good for a contractor!

Next lesson please.

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 12:26 PM
Learn from history, if not, the same mistakes will occur.

Go back to the S & L crisis of the 80's. This was caused some what by the deregulation by the government of banks,but the PRIMARY failure of the banking industry was government changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Not only did the tax payer get hosed by the government bail out, but so did us who owned stocks in the S & L's!!! Lost all of my stock investment in Glen Fed (aka Glendale Federal S&L)

Government is not the answer, it's usually the problem!!!



You might want to study the problem a little more Michael, Banks were and are regulated, Investment Institutions like Bear Sterns weren't and aren't, yet the FED is giving them Billions, 36 this week, without any regualtions or procedures in place to ensure that the same failures don't happen again. Remember that most of those who ran these companies have made Millions, what does it matter to them if their companies failed, the only one hurt by their failures are the stock holders who don't seem to have been upset over the past several years by the sub prime and minumum ARM loans their managers gave out.




If you want some ijnteresting reading google "Minimum or Option ARMs", I'd never heard of them until I was in Vegas a couple of years ago and saw ads on TV about how you could, with nothing down, purchase a $649K home for only $960 a month using a Minimum ARM Loan. Idiots throughout Nevada and Southern Cal jumped on these loans, not even paying the monthly interest on the loan.



Under these loans, many of which end up with a higher balance every month, once the payoff or balance reaches 110 to 120% of the value of the home, the loan is automatically recast with the payment amortized over the remaining period of the loan at the preset interest which for some loans was 10% or more, $960 a month becomes several thousand, and we're supposed to spend our tax money bailing out those idiots along with the companies that gave them the loan.....Free Enterprise, sure it is. Wefare for Everyone is more like it.

Joseph P. Hagarty
03-29-2008, 12:33 PM
James, you are soooo wrong. I posted this on another tread that you read but didn;t respond to.

Remember Lorraine Hutton?
There's a good question, 'Whatever happened to Lorraine Hutton?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/associations-ethics-standards-licensing-legislation-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/6328-fight-good-fight.html#post36684


New Jersey licensing consumer advocate. She along with NACHI (Phil, forgot his last name) got the requirements lowered stating competition would be good for the consumer.

What a crock

It is a good thing that Phil Hinman and NACHI were involved.
The crock you call Poor Licensing is rated by ASHI as the 2nd Best in the Nation.

ASHI's 2007 State Rankings
Below are ASHI's 2007 rankings of state regulations governing the home
inspection industry....
1. Louisiana
2. New Jersey

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 01:57 PM
RAYMOND


Yes, contractors like myself can set our own prices, but those prices we can charge need to be with in the general area others charge.
Not bad for a contractor? Contrary to your negative opinion of contractors, we all didn't fall off the turnip truck recently.

I have a masters degree in economics, with a minor in business management and accounting. This has served me well in making good business decissions over many years.

Professional choice/Business Decissions.
You had darn well be sure you have and are making the best business decissions FIRST, if not, the professional choice goes out the window!

I have NEVER said licensing is a scam, only that it can have unintended consequences, such as limiting competition.

You keep wanting hard facts? You've gotten them, read any econ book or business book, or business magazine, the proof is there.

So, I throw it back into your court. You come up with "Hard evidence" that licensing does not limit competion and raise prices.

Your inclusion of the trades (plumbers, electrictions, HVAC, etc) doesn't wash. Hourly rates, most generaly, are the prevailing (Union) rates, and due to union influence, licensing follows union rules. The hourly rate a business man needs to pay for a union tradesman, is union rate, anything less the worker agrees to he will lose his union status if he works for less.
Called a level playing field. And that does not equate to competion.

I shall anxiously await your hard evidence in support of your conclusions.



Steve




Nice opinions, and you can put the spin you want on licencing, but thats as far as it goes. Its obvious you would rather make a business decision rather than a professional choice.



I am still waiting for hard facts that licencing is a scam and still waiting and that it limits competition. The fact is it does not, just as it has not limited competition with plumbers, heating contractors as they are free to set their own costs/charges, just as contractors like yourself are free to set prices without restriction of any professional challenges interfering.



Thank you for your attempts, pretty good for a contractor!



Next lesson please.

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 02:15 PM
Steven posted:


So, I throw it back into your court. You come up with "Hard evidence" that licensing does not limit competion and raise prices.
I can no more provide that information than you can to disprove that it limits competition.


Your inclusion of the trades (plumbers, electrictions, HVAC, etc) doesn't wash. Hourly rates, most generaly, are the prevailing (Union) rates, and due to union influence, licensing follows union rules. The hourly rate a business man needs to pay for a union tradesman, is union rate, anything less the worker agrees to he will lose his union status if he works for less.
Called a level playing field. And that does not equate to competion.

Thats not quite the way it works up here. Independent licenced electricians can go and start their own business. The union is for licenced electricians that work in the public utilities which are all union or on private construction projects again unionized. That is the difference between the two and they don't merge, up here at least. So licencing hasn't hindered electricians, and others, it has helped both unionized and non unionized private contractors.

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 04:17 PM
I can offer "text book" economic theory, and if you google, you can check on various business journals on the subject.

Being that you can't prove your side, don't believe I can/did prove my side, then guess licensing does no good on either side of the issue, so why have licensing???

Down here, union members can leave the union and start their own business, but are "encouraged", make that: (required if they want to remain a member in good standing), to hire only union members, AND PAY THEM UNION SCALE.

Any union member that leaves union jobs, for jobs in the private sector, are NOT "allowed" to work for less than the union rate.

Now, if you have to have a state license, follow union/state licensing requirements, which requires a higher wage rate than the private sector is willing to pay, then what do you have? State backed (by licensing) protection of wages for a select group!!!

Thus, two things have occured here. A state sanctioned reduction of the supply (labor), Exclusion of others that may work for less. That along with an increase in cost to the consumer due to the additional cost of that labor.

All of the above, the unintended consequences of licensing, being in the bed with the unions, (also associations) that does not serve the consumer at all.





Steven posted:

I can no more provide that information than you can to disprove that it limits competition.



Thats not quite the way it works up here. Independent licenced electricians can go and start their own business. The union is for licenced electricians that work in the public utilities which are all union or on private construction projects again unionized. That is the difference between the two and they don't merge, up here at least. So licencing hasn't hindered electricians, and others, it has helped both unionized and non unionized private contractors.

Raymond Wand
03-29-2008, 04:25 PM
I would have to state that up here in my province that the licenced trades and regulated professions have been very good at ensuring public confidence and satisfaction. They have not restricted the profession only improved and strengthened fwiw.

Cheers,

Steven Meyer
03-29-2008, 05:49 PM
Then, if it does as intended, you have a good license bill.
What works up there, may not work down here.

Seems the national push for licensing here in the states, is a "one size fits all" approach.

What's good and works for New York, may not work in California. etc.

Each state, and in your case province, should be able to determine their own licensing needs, with out un due outside influence and interfearance.

Don't know/judge your situation up there, just know how things work in my own back yard.



I would have to state that up here in my province that the licenced trades and regulated professions have been very good at ensuring public confidence and satisfaction. They have not restricted the profession only improved and strengthened fwiw.

Cheers,

Steven Meyer
03-30-2008, 04:52 PM
RAYMOND, by the law of averages you have finally come up with something I can agree with you on!!!

IS YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?
The short answer is NO!

Having been a independent insurance adjuster/investigator (just out of college, years ago), my experience is thus:

Insurance companies are a for profit business, and by that very nature, cut and run, to protect its bottom line, with out any regard to the policy holder, and the impact such a decision is to the bottom line of the policy holder.

They settle cases quickly, to cut costs and any possible futu.re liability on their part, even thou the claim has no merit. This, to keep their "books clean of setasides of possible negative outcomes". To many unsettled cases on their books, looks bad on wall street and can impact their stock price.

Many a claim that we adjusters worked on were with out merit, but our recommendation to decline it, more often than not, was over ruled by the underwriters.

Depending on the claim (in dollars) it was much cheaper to hammer out a out of court settlement than the cost of defending the claim. This is a plantiff Attorneys dream,and what they count on, quick settlement, no court time, quick buck.

This attitude on the part of the insurance industry, rolling over on claims,to the delight of the bottom feeder attorneys, is what keeps these claims so profitable for these attorneys. (look at/consider just how the attorneys can afford full page yellow page ads!!!)

If the insurance companies would fight to the end those claims that have no merit, It would put plantiff attorneys on notice: They had better have a strong case or they won't recover. You would find that the marginal/bogus claims would go away, as no attorney is going to put time, effort, money into a case he can't win in court. And be assured, the last thing the attorney wants to do is go to court, time involved cuts into his quick buck format, and takes time away from the easy quick settlements. Keep in mind, these attorneys work on a % of the recovery, and "front" all court costs. No recovery, no money!!!

Yes, fighting these cases would be "expensive" for the insurance companies, but only in the short run. In the long run,as noted above, once these meritless cases are lost in court, attorneys lose their time and money, all this nonsense would come to a halt.

One other point, some insurance regulation (Raymond, you know how I feel about government, but will make an exception with this) may be needed. That is if a insurance company decides to settle your case that is with out merit, just to protect their bottom line, then the least they can do is to also pick up the cost of your deductable (and not ding you for a claim nor up your rates or cancel your policy)

Read your policy, they are to defend you against claims, and any loses that incur. It's the "defend you" part of their insurance contract that I, or any one should have a problem with.

So, when you get a claim against you, DO NOT depend on the insurance company to look out for YOUR best interest. Just ain't going to happen!!!



Insurance, by its very defination, is to insure against losses caused by the policy holder



Government only messes it up?

In my opinion its been the insurers messing up by paying out rather than fighting many of these cases as it is financially prudent for them to do so. Then they are quick to label the inspector as a bad risk. The government can only created bad legislation, thats why it is imperative inspectors who are under the sights of licencing had better make certain they are heard, this does not always appear to be the case from what I am seeing, but thats my take on it for what its worth.

Cheers,

Raymond Wand
03-30-2008, 05:10 PM
Thanks Steve, a good read. You'll be agreeing a lot more I think. ;)


Many a claim that we adjusters worked on were with out merit, but our recommendation to decline it, more often than not, was over ruled by the underwriters. Been there done that.

In my opinion E&O insurance has become an expensive warranty program, when its true purpose is to protect the inspector from being found 'negligent' in the rendering of a home inspection.

Darren Miller
03-31-2008, 03:36 AM
It is a good thing that Phil Hinman and NACHI were involved.
The crock you call Poor Licensing is rated by ASHI as the 2nd Best in the Nation.

ASHI's 2007 State Rankings
Below are ASHI's 2007 rankings of state regulations governing the home
inspection industry....
1. Louisiana
2. New Jersey

See that, you agree with me without realizing it!

New Jersey USED to be #1 until NACHI, Lorraine & Phil cried foul.

It just goes to show how poor other state licensing is.

Darren Miller
03-31-2008, 03:45 AM
A consumer who fought to change an existing HI licensing law to minimize a part of the damage it caused consumers....Lorraine Hutton....is a far cry from a consumer pushing for or advocating the need for a licensing law where one does not presently exist.

It has never happened.

Not once in any of the 32 legislative (registration, licensing, etc) actions across the country has a consumer or consumer group led the fight ..... or even participated.

Licensing is a scam.

Don't you just love when people 1,000 miles away think they know what's happening in someone elses backyard.

NACHI got Lorraine involved in NJ to REDUCE the requirements for licensing.
The cry was it's too hard to get a license, there won't be enough inspectors to do the job, thereby slowing down the process of homebuyers.
All because most (I didn't say all, Most) NACHI inspectors couldn't get a license because they weren't experienced and they didn't want to go thru the 300 hrs and the mentoring.
Oh yeah, (Lorraines quote) "more inspectors means more competition means lower cost to the homebuyer."



Get you facts straight JAMES!

By the way, the senator who helped get the licensing lowered is serving time for numerous wrongdoings

Raymond Wand
03-31-2008, 05:09 AM
James is busy right now over on the NACHO board pontificating that licencing is a scam, and that ASHI is a scam, and the government is a scam and that his birth was a scam... :D

I am sure he will be over here soon enough with his soap box along with his shadow Harvey Hemplestern! :o

Harvey Hempelstern
03-31-2008, 08:23 AM
Don't you just love when people 1,000 miles away think they know what's happening in someone elses backyard.

NACHI got Lorraine involved in NJ to REDUCE the requirements for licensing.
The cry was it's too hard to get a license, there won't be enough inspectors to do the job, thereby slowing down the process of homebuyers.
All because most (I didn't say all, Most) NACHI inspectors couldn't get a license because they weren't experienced and they didn't want to go thru the 300 hrs and the mentoring.
Oh yeah, (Lorraines quote) "more inspectors means more competition means lower cost to the homebuyer."



Get you facts straight JAMES!

By the way, the senator who helped get the licensing lowered is serving time for numerous wrongdoings


Darren, I fear that you are the one deficient in facts.

You are trying to argue that New Jersey reflects an instance where consumers worked to pass a licensing law....when that never happened.

In your example, you provide as to how a consumer and NACHI rewrote the law.

While you report that it is a lousy law (as all of them are, IMO) I do find it amusing that the law you report to have been written by NACHI is ranked second....number two.....nbext one to top of the list.....by ASHI.

LOL

Oh, the irony of it all.

Michael Greenwalt
03-31-2008, 03:59 PM
Joe,
We don't have your crystal ball here in Kansas. We do however have a bill, poorly written, that has made it through the house and is now OUT of the Senate committee heading to the Senate floor. Lest a miracle happens a bad bill is about to become law in Kansas. Please let us know where you get your info so we can use your source to our benefit.
Thanks
Michael